Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:23:51.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberal International theory: Eurocentric but not always Imperialist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

Martin Hall  and
John M. Hobson
Martin Hall*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, PO Box 52, Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
John M. Hobson*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Elmfield, Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
*
*E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
*E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article has two core objectives: first to challenge the conventional understanding of liberal international theory (which we do by focussing specifically on classical liberalism) and second, to develop much further postcolonialism’s conception of Eurocentrism. These twin objectives come together insofar as we argue that classical liberalism does not always stand for anti-imperialism/non-interventionism given that significant parts of it were Eurocentric and pro-imperialist. But we also argue that in those cases where liberals rejected imperialism they did so not out of a commitment to cultural pluralism, as we are conventionally told, but as a function of either a specific Eurocentric or a scientific racist stance. This, in turn, means that Eurocentrism can be reduced neither to scientific racism nor to imperialism. Thus while we draw on postcolonialism and its critique of liberalism as Eurocentric, we find its conception of Eurocentrism (and hence its vision of liberalism) to be overly reductive. Instead we differentiate four variants of ‘polymorphous Eurocentrism’ while revealing how two of these rejected imperialism and two supported it. And by revealing how classical liberalism was embedded within these variants of Eurocentrism so we recast the conventional interpretation. In doing so, we bring to light the ‘protean career of polymorphous liberalism’ as it crystallizes in either imperialist or anti-imperialist forms as a function of the different variants of Eurocentrism within which it is embedded. Finally, because two of these variants underpin modern liberalism (as discussed in the Conclusions) so we challenge international relations scholars to rethink their conventional understanding of both classical- and modern-liberalism, as much as we challenge postcolonialists to rethink their conception of Eurocentrism.

Keywords

liberalismpostcolonialismEurocentrism/Orientalismracismimperialism/anti-imperialisminterventionism/non-interventionism
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 210 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anghie, A. (2005), Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Apel, K.O. (1997), ‘Kant’s toward perpetual peace as historical prognosis from the point of view of moral duty’, in J. Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 79–110.Google Scholar
Barkawi, T.Laffey, M. (2002), ‘Retrieving the imperial: Empire and international relations’, Millennium 31(1): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D.Sylvest, C. (2006), ‘International society in Victorian political thought: T.H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick’, Modern Intellectual History 3(2): 207–238.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, R. (2001), ‘Who invented the concept of race? Kant’s role in the enlightenment construction of race’, in R. Bernasconi (ed.), Race, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Blair, J.L. (1899), Imperialism, Our New National Policy, St. Louis: Gottschalk.Google Scholar
Bowden, B. (2009), The Empire of Civilization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G.W. (2009), Grounding Cosmopolitanism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Burchill, S. (1996), ‘Liberal internationalism’, in S. Burchill and A. Linklater (eds), Theories of International Relations, London: Macmillan, pp. 28–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhry, G.Nair, S. (eds) (2002), Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cobden, R. (1868), Political Writings, 2 Vols, London: Ridgway.Google Scholar
Cobden, R. (1835/1868), ‘England, Ireland, and America’, in R. Cobden (ed.), Political Writings, I, London: Ridgway, pp. 1–153.Google Scholar
Cobden, R. (1836/1868), ‘Russia, Turkey, and England’, in R. Cobden, Political Writings, I, London: Ridgway, pp. 161–214.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (2000), ‘Foreign question’, in A. Dufourmantelle (ed.), Of Hospitality, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 3–75.Google Scholar
Doty, R.L. (1996), Imperial Encounters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, M. (1983a), ‘Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12(3): 205–235.Google Scholar
Doyle, M. (1983b), ‘Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs, part 2’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12(4): 323–353.Google Scholar
Doyle, M. (1986), Empires, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Eze, E.C. (1997), Race and the Enlightenment, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gossett, T.F. (1997), Race: The History of an Idea in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grovogui, S.N. (1996), Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns and Africans, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Gruffydd-Jones, B. (2006a), Decolonizing International Relations, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gruffydd-Jones, B. (2006b), ‘Introduction: International Relations, Eurocentrism, and Imperialism’, in B. Gruffydd-Jones (ed.), Decolonizing International Relations, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 23–42.Google Scholar
Hindess, B. (2001), ‘Not at home in the empire’, Social Identities 7(3): 363–377.Google Scholar
Hobson, J.M. (2004), The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, J.M. (2009), ‘Defending the Western Interest: Historical Sociology of Eurocentrism in International Theory’ (unpublished book manuscript).Google Scholar
Hobson, J.M. (2010), ‘Back to the future of nineteenth century international thought’, in G. Lawson, M. Cox and C. Armbruster (eds), The Global 1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, N.Blaney, D. (2004), International Relations and the Problem of Difference, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jahn, B. (2000), The Cultural Construction of International Relations, Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Jahn, B. (2005), ‘Barbarian thoughts: imperialism in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill’, Review of International Studies 31(3): 599–618.Google Scholar
Jahn, B. (2006), ‘Classical smoke, classical mirror: Kant and Mill in liberal international relations theory’, in Jahn (ed.), Classical Theory in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D.S. (1901), Imperial Democracy, New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1970a), ‘Idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan purpose’, in H. Reiss (ed.), Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1970b), ‘Perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch’, in H. Reiss (ed.), Kant’s Political Writings, pp. 93–130.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1970c), ‘The metaphysics of morals’, in H. Reiss (ed.), Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997a), ‘On the different races of man’, in E. C. Eze (ed.), Race and the Enlightenment, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 38–48.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997b), ‘On national characteristics’, in E. C. Eze (ed.), Race and the Enlightenment, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997c), ‘Physical geography’, in E. C. Eze (ed.), Race and the Enlightenment, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 58–64.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2001a), ‘On the use of teleological principles in philosophy (1788)’, in R. Bernasconi (ed.), Race, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 37–56.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2001b), Kant: On History, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ling, L.H.M. (2002), Postcolonial International Relations, Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Long, D. (2005), ‘Paternalism and the internationalization of imperialism’, in D. Long and B. C. Schmidt (eds), Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, New York: SUNY, pp. 71–91.Google Scholar
Long, D.Schmidt, B.C. (eds) (2005), Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Mackinder, H. (1904), ‘The geographical pivot of history’, The Geographical Journal 23(4): 421–437.Google Scholar
Mahan, A.T. (1897), ‘A twentieth-century outlook’, Harper’s Monthly (September), pp. 522–533.Google Scholar
Meek, R.L. (1976), Social Science and the Ignoble Savage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mehta, U.S. (1999), Liberalism and Empire, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moore-Gilbert, B. (1997), Postcolonial Theory, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Muthu, S. (2003), Enlightenment Against Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Muthu, S. (2008), ‘Adam Smith’s critique of international trading companies: theorizing “globalization” in the age of enlightenment’, Political Theory 36(2): 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagden, A. (1998), Lords of All the World, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Paolini, A.J. (1999), Navigating Modernity, London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Parekh, B. (1997), ‘The West and its others’, in K. Ansell-Pearson, B. Parry and J. Squires (eds), Cultural Readings of Imperialism, London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 173–193.Google Scholar
Pateman, C.Mills, C.W. (2007), Contract and Domination, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. (2005), A Turn to Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinsch, P.S. (1905), Colonial Administration, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Said, E.W. (1978), Orientalism, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Schmidt, B.C. (1998), The Political Discourse of Anarchy, New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1776/1937), The Wealth of Nations, New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1762–1763/1982), Lectures on Jurisprudence, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1851), Social Statics, New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1881), The Man Versus the State, London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1896/2004), Principles of Sociology, I, Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1902), Facts and Comments, New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Stocking, G.W. (1982), Race, Culture and Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sumner, W.G. (1883/2007), What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, Bel Air, CA: BiblioBazaar.Google Scholar
Sumner, W.G. (1898/1911), ‘The conquest of the United States by Spain’, in W.G. Sumner (ed.), War and Other Essays, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 297–334.Google Scholar
Sumner, W.G. (1903/1911), ‘War’, in W.G. Sumner (ed.), War and Other Essays, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 3–40.Google Scholar
Tuck, R. (1999), The Rights of War and Peace, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, J. (1995), Strange Multiplicity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, J. (2002), ‘The Kantian idea of Europe: critical and cosmopolitan perspectives’, in A. Pagden (ed.), The Idea of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–358.Google Scholar
Vitalis, R. (2000), ‘The graceful and generous liberal gesture: making racism invisible in American international relations’, Millennium 29(2): 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitalis, R. (2005), ‘Birth of a Discipline’, in D. Long and B. C. Schmidt (eds), Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, New York: SUNY, pp. 159–181.Google Scholar
Vitalis, R. (2008), ‘The noble American science of imperial relations and its laws of race development’, ISA conference, San Francisco, 1–74.Google Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1959), Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, L.F. (1903/2002), Pure Sociology, Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. (1902), ‘The ideals of America’, Atlantic Monthly 90(6): 721–734.Google Scholar
Wood, A.W. (2006), ‘Kant’s philosophy of history’, in P. Kleingeld (ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace and History, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 243–263.Google Scholar