Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Brooks, Thom
2012.
Hegel and Global Justice.
Vol. 10,
Issue. ,
p.
65.
Article contents
British Idealist International Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2015
Abstract
International relations theorists have long complained about the paucity of rigorous political philosophy in their discipline, and especially bemoan the lack of classic texts to guide them. It is suggested that with the exception of Thucydides, there is little exclusively concerned with International Relations, and nothing that international relations theorists have constructed to resemble the received canon comparable with its sister subject of political theory. Yet all of the major political theorists accommodate international relations in some way, and are invoked by contemporary international relations theorists as having something important to say. Contemporary international relations theory, however, is immersed in its own sense of self-importance, seeing the value of everything in utilitarian or practical terms. The desire to change the world, and not merely to understand it, predisposes the discipline to scale the obligatory heights of Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant, Hegel and Marx in order to pillage what is useful, and to ignore the attempts of philosophers more immediately at the root of modern international relations theory who addressed many of the questions currently thought important and which pointed the way to some of the contemporary answers. Hegel's ill-deserved, but not wholly unfounded, reputation as a brutal realist, and the association of Bosanquet and the rest of the British Idealists with German or Prussian philosophy during and between the two world wars in popular and learned journals, newspapers, and the publications of leading philosophers, including Hobhouse, Hobson, Dewey, Santayana, Laski, Delise Burns, Cole and Joad, have served to bury almost without trace a wealth of literature that applied what are now fashionably called communitarian principles to international questions. Even Chris Brown, who relates Hegel, Green and Bosanquet to the communitarian approach to international relations, ignores the fact that British idealists addressed the key issues of the possibility of extending the community to the international sphere and the establishment of supranational institutions.
- Type
- Hegel and British Idealism
- Information
- Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 16 , Issue 1: number 31 , Spring/Summer 1995 , pp. 73 - 89
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 1995
References
1 A version of this paper was first delivered at the History of Political Thought Conference, Oxford, January 1993, and a different version at the Hegel Society of Great Britain Conference, September, 1994. I would like to thank the participants from whose comments the argument of this paper has greatly benefitted. A much longer version appeared in print under the title ‘British Idealism, the State and International Relations’, Journal of the History of Ideas, (1994), 671–693 Google Scholar. What is presented here is a revised version of one part of that article. I would like to thank Donald R Kelly, the editor of the Journal of the History of Ideas, for permission freely to draw upon the above article.
2 A good deal has been done to rehabilitate Bosanquet, but the arguments have not been extended to the other British idealists in any systematic way. See Ewing, A C, The Individual, the State, and World Government (New York, Macmillan, 1947), 190–201 Google Scholar; Nicholson, Peter P, ‘Philosophical Idealism and International Politics: A Reply to Dr Savigear’, British Journal of International Studies, 2 (1976), 76–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collini, Stefan, ‘Hobhouse, Bosanquet and the State: Philosophical Idealism and Political Argument in England 1880-1918’, Past and Present, 72 (1976), 86–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Band, D C, ‘The Critical Reception of English Neo-Hegelianism in Britain and America, 1914-1960’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 26 (1980), 230–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicholson, Peter P, The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990), 221–28Google Scholar; Beddie, Brian, ‘Hegel and International Relations’, Political Theory Newsletter 4 (1992), 126–29Google Scholar.
3 Brown, Chris, International Relations Theory (London, Harvester, 1992)Google Scholar; and, ‘International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community’ in International Relations Theory Today, edited by Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1995), 90–109 Google Scholar.
4 Cf what the Laws say to Socrates in Plato's Crito, 50A: “since you have been born and brought up and educated, can you deny, in the first place, that you were our child and servant, both you and your ancestors?”
5 Hobson, J A, ‘The War and British Liberties’, The Nation, June 10, 1916, 307–8Google Scholar; Hobson, J A, Democracy After the War (London, Allen and Unwin, 1915), 113–8Google Scholar; Hobson, J A, Towards International Government (London, Allen and Unwin, 1915), 178–9Google Scholar; Hobson, J A, Imperialism: A Study, edited with an introduction by Townshend, J (London, Unwin Hyman, 1988: third edition), 166–7Google Scholar; and Hobson, J A, The Crisis of Liberalism (London, King, 1909), 248–260 Google Scholar.
6 Hobhouse's now famous condemnation of Hegelianism is, of course, The Metaphysical Theory of the State: A Criticism (London, Macmillan, 1951 Google Scholar: first published 1918). This text is the crystalisation of views that he had earlier expressed in such volumes as Democracy and Reaction, ed Clarke, Peter (London, Harvester, 1972: first published 1904 Google Scholar). This edition includes Hobhouse's introduction to the second edition of 1909. Hobhouse describes Jones as a “distinguished exponent” of the philosophy he repudiates. Democracy and Reaction, 273.
7 Hobson, , Crisis of Liberalism, 250 Google Scholar.
8 Joad, C E M, Introduction to Modern- Political Theory (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1924), 16 and 19 Google Scholar.
9 Jones, , ‘Why We Are Fighting’, The Hibben Journal, xiii (1914–1915), 63 Google Scholar. Cf Bosanquet, , ‘The Function of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’, 274 Google Scholar, and Philosophical Theory of the State, 298.
10 See Jones, , Principles of Citizenship (London, Macmillan, 1919), 150 Google Scholar; and Watson, , State in Peace and War (Glasgow, Maclehose, 1919), 207–208 Google Scholar.
11 Green, T H, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (London, Longmans Green, 1917), 148 Google Scholar.
12 Ritchie, , ‘Rights of Minorities’, 141 Google Scholar; Bosanquet, , Philosophical Theory of the State, fourth edition (London, Macmillan, 1965: first edition 1899), 199 Google Scholar; MacCunn, , ‘Cosmopolitan Duties’, The International Journal of Ethics, xi (1898–1899), 167 Google Scholar; Jones, , ‘Morality and Its Relation to War’ in Ethical and Religious Problems of the War, ed Carpenter, J E (London, Lindsay, 1916), 25 Google Scholar.
13 Ritchie, , ‘Rights of Minorities’, 140–1Google Scholar. Cf Bosanquet, , Philosophical Theory of the State, 1 Google Scholar.
14 Jones, , ‘Morality and its relation to the War’, 26–7Google Scholar.
15 MacKenzie, , ‘Use of Moral Ideas in Polities’, International Journal of Ethics, 12 (1901–1902), 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Jones, , Principles of Citizenship, 40–42 Google Scholar; Bosanquet, , Philosophical Theory of the State, 1 Google Scholar; Hetherington, H J W and Muirhead, J H, Social Purpose (London, Allen and Unwin, 1922: first published 1918), 270 Google Scholar.
17 Hetherington, and Muirhead, , Social Purpose, 271 Google Scholar. Cf Jones, , ‘Morality and its Relation to the War’, 26 Google Scholar.
18 Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Realtions, second edition (London, Macmillan, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linklater, Andrew, Beyond Realism and Marxism (London, Macmillan, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andrew Linklater, ‘What is a Good International Citizen?’ Ethics and Foreign Policy, ed Keal; Linklater, Andrew, ‘Men and Citizens in International Relations’ in International Relations and Political Theory, ed Williams, Howard, Wright, Moorhead and Evans, Tony (Buckinghamshire, Open University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and, Chris Brown, International Relations Theory.
19 Of the Absolute Idealists only Bradley's politics are something of a mystery. Ritchie had been a member of the Fabian Society, but left during the mid 1890s.
20 Brown, , ‘International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community’, 91 and 105 Google Scholar. The categorization of international relations theory into cosmopolitan and communitarian points of view leads to the strange paradox of a universal community that does not transcend the state (Kant), and a communitarianism which transcends the state and envisages the extension of the moral community world-wide (the British Idealists). Brown unfortunately misses this latter paradox.
21 Hobson, , Towards International Government, 178 Google Scholar.
22 Hobson, , Democracy After the War, 114 Google Scholar.
23 Hobhouse, , Metaphysical Theory of the State, 25 Google Scholar. Also see, Nicholson, , Some Aspects of the Philosophy of L T Hobhouse (Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois, 1926), 61 Google Scholar.
24 Hobson, , Crisis of Liberalism, 254–5Google Scholar. Cf Hobhouse: “the bare conception of right in public matters has lost its force and given place to a political ‘necessity’ and ‘reason of state’”. Hobhouse, , Democracy and Reaction, 60 Google Scholar; and Nicholson, , Some Aspects of the Philosophy of L T Hobhouse, 61 Google Scholar.
25 Bradley, , Ethical Studies, second edition (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1927: first published 1876), 342 Google Scholar, and Bosanquet, Bernard, “Patriotisn in a Perfect State’, in The International Crisis in Its Ethical and Psychological Aspects by Sidgwick, Eleanor et al (London, Humphrey Milford, 1915), 150 Google Scholar.
26 Jones, ‘Moral Problems of the War’, 35.
27 Hegel, G W F, Philosophy of Right (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991), §336Google Scholar.
28 Ibid., §324.
29 Ritchie, D G, ‘War and Peace’, International Journal of Ethics, xi (1900–1901), 138, 141, 149 Google Scholar.
30 Hobhouse, L T, ‘Foreign Policy of Collectivism’, Economic Review, 9 (1899), 215 Google Scholar.
31 Green, , Principles of Political Obligation, 160–6Google Scholar.
32 Nicholson, , Political Philosophy of the British Idealists, 227–8Google Scholar.
33 Bosanquet, , ‘Function of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’ in Social and International Ideals (London, Macmillan, 1917), 301 Google Scholar.
34 Bosanquet, Bernard, Some Suggestions in Ethics (London, Macmillan, 1918), 242 Google Scholar; Bosanquet, , “Functions of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’, 301 Google Scholar.
35 Jones, , ‘Why We Are Fighting’, Hibbert Journal, xiii (1914–1915), 50–57 Google Scholar; Hetherington, H J W, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Jones (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1924), 125-–6Google Scholar.
36 Bosanquet, , ‘Function of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’, 277 Google Scholar.
37 Muirhead, J H, Reflections by a Journeyman in Philosophy on the Movements of Thought and Practice of His Time (London, Murray, 1942), 179 Google Scholar. Cf. Bosanquet, , ‘Patriotism in a Perfect State’, 145 Google Scholar.
38 See Green, Principles of Political Obligation, chapter K; Watson, , State in Peace and War, 249–50Google Scholar. Bosanquet says: “Now states are dangerous to each other by reason of their biased consciences, and biased consciences come of inequality. No State can exhibit an unperverted conscience abroad which is not bent on making itself an equal instrument of the best life for all its members”. ‘Wisdom of Naaman's Servants’, Social and International Ideals, 309.
39 To be fair to Chris Brown he does show how Green and Bosanquet do not follow Hegel in their attitudes to war. Brown, , International Relations Theory, 68–70 Google Scholar.
40 See Henkin, Louis, ‘The Role of Law and Its Limitiations’ in International Relations in the Twentieth Century, ed Williams, Marc (London, Macmillan, 1992), 185–94Google Scholar.
41 Bradley, , “Limits of International and National Self-Sacrifice’, International Journal of Ethics, 5 (1894–1895), 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ritchie, , ‘Moral Problems of War’, International Journal of Ethics, xi (1900–1901), 494 Google Scholar.
42 Hegel, G W F, Philosophy of Mind, translated by Wallace, William and Miller, A V (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971) §547Google Scholar; Hegel, Philosophy of Right, §333-4.
43 Cited in Long, David, ‘J A Hobson and Idealism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), 289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Idealism in the title does not refer to philosophical idealism.
44 Hobhouse, , Democracy and Reaction, 196 and 200 Google Scholar.
45 See, for example, Ritchie, D G, ‘On the Conception of Sovereignty’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1 (1891), 409 Google Scholar. He says, ‘International law is of the primitive type: it is custom’. Cf Bosanquet, , “Patriotism in the Perfect State’, 136–7Google Scholar.
46 Hegel, Philosophy of Right, §339.
47 Green, T H, Prolegomena to Ethics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1899), 247 Google Scholar.
48 Ibid, 250.
49 Bradley, , Ethical Studies, 205 Google Scholar; and, Bradley, , ‘Limits of Individual and National Self-Sacrifice’, 22 Google Scholar.
50 Bosanquet, , ‘Patriotism in a Perfect State’, 149 Google Scholar; Also see, ibid, 135, 137, and 150; Bosanquet, , “Function of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’, 288, 192, 295, and 297 Google Scholar.
51 For a few example see, Bradley, A C, ‘International Morality’ in The International Crisis in its Ethical and Psychological Aspects, 46–77 Google Scholar; MacKenzie, , ‘Use of Moral Ideas in Politics, International Journal of Ethics, 12 (1901–1902) 20–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sorley, W R, ‘State and Morality’ in The International Crisis: The Theory of the State by Creighton, Louise et al (London, OUP, 1916)Google Scholar; and Watson, , The State in Peace and War (Glasgow, Maclehose, 1919), 254–5Google Scholar.
52 Reprinted in Selected Addresses and Essays (London, Murray, 1928), 49–93 Google Scholar. The essay was written in 1913.
53 Ibid, 68.
54 Ibid, 69.
55 A similar view has been expressed more recently by J E S Fawcett: ‘Law cannot of itself create order, but emerges only where there is a minimum degree of order, which it may, however, serve to rationalise and extend’. ‘The Development of International Law’ in International Relations in the Twentieth Century, ed Williams, 195. Cf Bosanquet, , ‘Wisdom of Naaman's Servants’, 315 Google Scholar; MacKenzie, J S, Outlines of Social Philosophy (London, Allen and Unwin, 1918), 78 Google Scholar; and, Ritchie, D G, ‘On the Conception of Sovereignty’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, I (1891), 410 Google Scholar.
56 Hegel, Philosophy of Right, §338-9.
57 Bosanquet, , ‘Wisdom of Naaman's Servants’, 309 Google Scholar. Also see MacCunn, , ‘Cosmopolitan Duties’, 160 Google Scholar; Caird, Edward, “Nation as an Ethical Ideal’ in Lay Sermons Delivered in Balliol College (Glasgow, Maclehose, 1907), 110 Google Scholar; and Hetherington, and Muirhead, , Social Purpose, 215 Google Scholar.
58 Hobson, , ‘Socialistic Imperialism’, 56 Google Scholar. Cf Imperialism, 11.
59 Hobhouse, , “Foreign Policy of Collectivism’, 212 Google Scholar.
60 Hobhouse, L T, Questions of War and Peace (London, Fisher Unwin, 1915), 191 Google Scholar.
61 Hobhouse, , Metaphysical Theory of the State, 25 Google Scholar. Cf. Hobson, J. A., Towards International Government (London, Allen and Unwin, 1916), 178 Google Scholar.
62 See Brown, Chris, ‘Hegel and International Ethics’, Ethics and International Affairs, 5 (1991), 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Hobhouse, , ‘Toreign Policy of Collectivism’, 16–17 Google Scholar.
64 Ritchie, , “On the Conception of Sovereignty”, 410 Google Scholar.
65 Ritchie, , ‘War and Peace’, 150 Google Scholar.
66 Ritchie, , ‘War and Peace’, 156–7Google Scholar. Also see Crook, Paul, War and History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994), 115–6Google Scholar.
67 Ritchie, , Principles of State Interference (London, Sonnenschein, 1891) 69–70 Google Scholar.
68 R G Collingwood, ‘War and its relations to Christian Ethics with special reference to the Lambeth Report, 1930’. Unpublished ms. R G Collingwood Papers, Box 1, Bodleian Library Oxford, fol 10.
69 He argued that: ‘The older internationalism, based on a belief in humanitarian ethics on the one hand, and in the peaceful tendencies of commerce on the other is dead’. Hobhouse, L T, Questions of War and Peace (London, Fisher Unwin, 1916), 189 Google Scholar.
70 Hobson, , Crisis of Liberalism, 260 Google Scholar. Cf. Hobson, , Democracy after the War, 207–8Google Scholar.
71 Hobson, , Towards International Government, 161–2Google Scholar. Cf. Hobson, J. A., ‘Is International Government Possible?, The Hibbert Journal, 15 (1916–1917), 199–203 Google Scholar.
72 Hobhouse, , Questions of War and Peace, 223–4Google Scholar.
73 Haldane, J B, ‘Higher Nationality: A Study in Law and Ethics’, Selected Essays and Addresses (London, Murray, 1928), 52 Google Scholar. These three countries, he suggests, ‘form something resembling a single society’.
74 Muirhead, J H (ed.), Bosanquet and His Friends (London, Allken and Unwin, 1935), 164 Google Scholar.
75 Bosanquet, , ‘Patriotism in the Perfect State’, 136–40Google Scholar.
76 Jones, , ‘Form the League of Peace Now: An Appeal to My Fellow Citizens’ (London, League of Nations Union, 1918), 6 Google Scholar.
77 Bosanquet, , Philosophical Theory of the State, 1 Google Scholar.
78 Bosanquet, , ‘The Function of the State in Promoting the Unity of Mankind’, 298 Google Scholar. Cf Nicholson, , Political Philosophy of the British Idealists, 225 Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by