In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the historian and internationalist Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975) conducted a highly public campaign against Western imperialism, arguing that the West needed to acknowledge and atone for its aggression if the world was to find peace. His efforts met with considerable resistance, damaging his reputation as a scholar and a political thinker. This article examines the origins of Toynbee's anti-imperialism in his philosophy of history, his public arguments of the postwar period, and the reaction they provoked.
Over the past decade, India has invested significant resources in public diplomacy, using traditional and new approaches to build and leverage its soft power. This article examines the reasons for this investment, the various forms of public diplomacy India employs, and the effectiveness of its efforts to shape public opinion. It finds that Indian investment in public diplomacy is partly a response to concerns about the perceived growth of Chinese soft power and partly a function of changed beliefs in the foreign policy-making elite about the uses of new social media. It also finds that India's new public diplomacy seems to have met with some-albeit patchy-success in augmenting its soft power.
In The Tragic Vision of Politics (Lebow, 2003), Richard Ned Lebow argues that a 'tragic understanding of the political' provides the best ontological and epistemological foundations for a theory of International Relations. This article challenges that claim. It argues that other literary modes of representing social life can offer equally strong bases for international theories. To that end, it examines the 'satirical vision of politics' with reference to satirists as diverse as Aristophanes and Erasmus. It concludes that satire can provide just as good a form of political education as tragedy and just as robust a foundation for the kind of theory Lebow prefers.
Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975) has long been neglected or discounted by scholars of international relations and historians of international thought. Yet his contributions to International Affairs, as well as his Surveys of international affairs and his A study of history demonstrate both his capacity for acute interpretation of contemporary events and the depth of his learning about past international societies. This article examines his analysis of mid-twentieth century international relations, that 'Time of Troubles' which he believed would only be escaped through a recovery of 'creativity' and profound change in the ways in which world politics were practised. It explores the foundations of his approach to the field, demonstrated both in his Surveys of international affairs and his twelve volume magnum opus, A study of history, as well as his essays in journals. It analyses his diagnosis of the causes of our contemporary 'Time of Troubles', in the light of past episodes in world history Toynbee thought analogous to that present condition of international relations. And it traces his retreat from political solutions to the challenges faced in the twentieth century and his movement towards religious responses as a putative alternative. It concludes by arguing that Toynbee deserves recognition, not simply as a pioneering world historian or a controversial interpreter of the politics of the Middle East, but as an acute commentator on the international relations of a troubled age.
Australian International Relations (IR) was once a hybrid of American and European styles of political science, but today it is dominated by a British-inspired post-positivism which has its virtues - and its vices - and which utilises various interpretive and semi-interpretive approaches. This paper welcomes the 'interpretive turn' in Australian IR, but recognises its weaknesses, and argues that, to overcome them, interpretivists must be clear about what interpretivism should and should not entail. It argues that a thoroughgoing interpretivism offers two things that qualitative work in Australian IR desperately needs: a revived focus on explaining international relations, as well as understanding it, and a renewed engagement with other fields and other modes of studying the field.
It has been suggested that British intellectuals were either indifferent to decolonisation or sought to downplay its impact. As a consequence, historians of international thought have overlooked the extensive debates that occurred among scholars and intellectuals concerned with British foreign policy and international relations. This article addresses those debates, examining the responses of internationalist, Whig, realist, and radical thinkers to decolonization and to what they thought to be the changes it brought about in contemporary world politics. It argues that far from being indifferent to decolonisation, many British students of international relations were deeply worried about what some called 'the revolt against the West', and that those concerned helped shape the distinctive character of British international thought in the formative period of the discipline of International Relations (IR).
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the historian and internationalist Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975) conducted a highly public campaign against Western imperialism, arguing that the West needed to acknowledge and atone for its aggression if the world was to find peace. His efforts met with considerable resistance, damaging his reputation as a scholar and a political thinker. This article examines the origins of Toynbee's anti-imperialism in his philosophy of history, his public arguments of the postwar period, and the reaction they provoked.
Over the past decade, India has invested significant resources in public diplomacy, using traditional and new approaches to build and leverage its soft power. This article examines the reasons for this investment, the various forms of public diplomacy India employs, and the effectiveness of its efforts to shape public opinion. It finds that Indian investment in public diplomacy is partly a response to concerns about the perceived growth of Chinese soft power and partly a function of changed beliefs in the foreign policy-making elite about the uses of new social media. It also finds that India's new public diplomacy seems to have met with some-albeit patchy-success in augmenting its soft power.
In The Tragic Vision of Politics (Lebow, 2003), Richard Ned Lebow argues that a 'tragic understanding of the political' provides the best ontological and epistemological foundations for a theory of International Relations. This article challenges that claim. It argues that other literary modes of representing social life can offer equally strong bases for international theories. To that end, it examines the 'satirical vision of politics' with reference to satirists as diverse as Aristophanes and Erasmus. It concludes that satire can provide just as good a form of political education as tragedy and just as robust a foundation for the kind of theory Lebow prefers.
It has been suggested that British intellectuals were either indifferent to decolonisation or sought to downplay its impact. As a consequence, historians of international thought have overlooked the extensive debates that occurred among scholars and intellectuals concerned with British foreign policy and international relations. This article addresses those debates, examining the responses of internationalist, Whig, realist, and radical thinkers to decolonization and to what they thought to be the changes it brought about in contemporary world politics. It argues that far from being indifferent to decolonisation, many British students of international relations were deeply worried about what some called 'the revolt against the West', and that those concerned helped shape the distinctive character of British international thought in the formative period of the discipline of International Relations (IR).
Australian International Relations (IR) was once a hybrid of American and European styles of political science, but today it is dominated by a British-inspired post-positivism which has its virtues - and its vices - and which utilises various interpretive and semi-interpretive approaches. This paper welcomes the 'interpretive turn' in Australian IR, but recognises its weaknesses, and argues that, to overcome them, interpretivists must be clear about what interpretivism should and should not entail. It argues that a thoroughgoing interpretivism offers two things that qualitative work in Australian IR desperately needs: a revived focus on explaining international relations, as well as understanding it, and a renewed engagement with other fields and other modes of studying the field.
Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975) has long been neglected or discounted by scholars of international relations and historians of international thought. Yet his contributions to International Affairs, as well as his Surveys of international affairs and his A study of history demonstrate both his capacity for acute interpretation of contemporary events and the depth of his learning about past international societies. This article examines his analysis of mid-twentieth century international relations, that 'Time of Troubles' which he believed would only be escaped through a recovery of 'creativity' and profound change in the ways in which world politics were practised. It explores the foundations of his approach to the field, demonstrated both in his Surveys of international affairs and his twelve volume magnum opus, A study of history, as well as his essays in journals. It analyses his diagnosis of the causes of our contemporary 'Time of Troubles', in the light of past episodes in world history Toynbee thought analogous to that present condition of international relations. And it traces his retreat from political solutions to the challenges faced in the twentieth century and his movement towards religious responses as a putative alternative. It concludes by arguing that Toynbee deserves recognition, not simply as a pioneering world historian or a controversial interpreter of the politics of the Middle East, but as an acute commentator on the international relations of a troubled age.
This edited collection explores the fruitfulness of applying an interpretive approach to the study of global security. The interpretive approach concentrates on unpacking the meanings and beliefs of various policy actors, and, crucially, explains those beliefs by locating them in historical traditions and as responses to dilemmas. Interpretivists thereby seek to highlight the contingency, diversity and contestability of the narratives, expertise and beliefs that inform political action. The interpretive approach is widespread in the study of governance and public policy, but arguably it has not yet had much impact on security studies. The book therefore deploys the interpretive approach to explore contemporary issues in international security, combining theoretical engagement with good empirical coverage through a novel set of case studies. Bringing together a fresh mix of senior and junior scholars from across the fields of security studies, political theory and international relations, the chapters explore the beliefs, traditions and dilemmas that have informed security practice on the one hand, and the academic study of security on the other, as well as the connections between them. All contributors look to situate their work against a broader historical background and long-standing traditions, allowing them to take a critical yet historically informed approach to the material.
