Where are the idealists in interwar International Relations?

Abstract

International Relations (IR) textbooks often make reference to an idealist paradigm in interwar IR. This article argues that an idealist paradigm did not exist, and that interwar references to idealism or utopianism are contradictory and have little to do with defining a paradigm. Not only is there no idealist paradigm in IR at this time, but authors from the interwar period that have since been dismissed as idealists rarely share the attributes assigned to idealism or utopianism by later writers. If IR scholars are serious about understanding the history of their discipline then they will have to stop applying misleading and anachronistic terms like idealism.

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."…”

“…Many of those who have been dubbed "idealists" turn out, upon closer inspection, to subscribe to a position that is quite different from the manner in which it has been characterized in the secondary literature. On the basis of careful historical research, a variety of interwar discourses have been identified that together provide a very different account of this period of the field's history (Ashworth, 2006;Long and Schmidt, 2005;Osiander, 1998;Schmidt, 2002Schmidt, , 2012Sylvest, 2004;Thies, 2002). While it is the case that many of the interwar scholars shared a practical mission to reform the practice of international politics, this objective, I argue, does not in and of itself qualify the enterprise as utopian.…”

Nationalism and Internationalism in the Study of International Relations, 1900–1939

“…', Ashworth consequently asked and found that not only did the classic set of authors fail to match the criteria but, more generally, there had never been an 'idealist' paradigm at all. 29 Miles Kahler, too, has argued that Angell and Shotwell 'could be described as liberals and institutionalists, but they were hardly idealists'. 30 The group of authors, conventionally accused of 'idealism', turned out to be neither a group nor 'idealist', and wrote on a whole range of topics rather than the ones usually associated with them.…”

Interdisciplinarity and International Relations

“…The third wave historiography argues that the underlying nature of the debates within interwar IR was complex and shifting. The result is that it is not possible to understand the nature of interwar IR through the use of the catch-all phrases of realism and idealism (Sylvest, 2004;Ashworth, 2006;Williams, 2006); indeed, there is a case for arguing that there was a distinct liberal socialist paradigm in IR that combined support for a muscular collective security regime with opposition to the capitalist-dominated, and war-prone, state system (Ashworth, 2008).…”