Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:55:01.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

J. A. Hobson and Idealism In International relations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

David Long
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 1991 , pp. 285 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1991

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.)

Footnotes

*

A version of this paper was presented at the International Studies Annual Convention, Washington, DC, 10–14 April 1990. The author wishes to thank Peter Wilson, Martin Ceadel, Michael Banks, Ronen Palan and tw o anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

References

1 Hobson’s review of W. E. Dodd, Woodrow Wilson and His Work, The Nation, 111 (1920), pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

2 Article commemorating the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of J. A, Hobson, South Place Monthly Record, 63 (July 1958).Google Scholar

3 See Taylor, , The Trouble-Makers (1957; Harmondsworth, 1985), p. 145–6. Taylor uses Hobson’s tumble down the stairs from the 1917 Club as a metaphor for the collapse of idealism in 1931.Google Scholar

4 Markwell, D. J., ‘Sir Alfred Zimmera Revisited: Fifty Years On’, Review of International Studies, 12 (1986), pp. 279–92Google Scholar; Porter, Brian, ‘David Davies: A Hunter After Peace’, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 27–36Google Scholar; Navari, Cornelia, ‘The Great Illusion Revisited: The International Theory of Norman Angell’, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 341–58.Google Scholar

5 See Banks, M., ‘The Inter-Paradigm Debate’, in Light, M. and Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London, 1985), pp. 14–15Google Scholar; Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline (Boston, 1985), pp. 28–31Google Scholar; Smith, S., ‘International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16 (1987), pp. 190–2.Google Scholar

6 Wight, M., ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966).Google Scholar

7 Bull, Hedley, ‘The Theory of International Politics 1919–1969’, in Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers (London, 1972), p. 34.Google Scholar

8 For various discussions of the liberal, rationalist world-view which underlies idealism in international relations, see Crowley, B. L., The Individual, Self and Community (Oxford, 1987), p. 2Google Scholar; Gray, J., Liberalism (Milton Keynes, 1986), p. xGoogle Scholar; Oakeshott, M., Rationalism in Politics (New York, 1962), p. 11Google Scholar; Crick, B., In Defence of Politics (1962; Chicago, 1967), p. 128Google Scholar; Morgenthau, H., Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1943).Google Scholar

9 Carr, , The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939; London, 1946), p. 27.Google Scholar

10 Berki, R. N., On Political Realism (London, 1981), pp. 193–4Google Scholar; E. H. Carr, Twenty Years’ Crisis, ch. 2. Thus, both Hobson and Carr are idealists in Berki’s definition. The difference, between Carr and Hobson is that in The Twenty Years’ Crisis, Carr placed himself on the realist side, while Hobson remains on the Utopian, according to Carr’s criteria.

11 Democracy After the War (London, 1917), part 2, ch. 1.Google Scholar

12 The initial formulation of his critique of imperialism appears in the article, ‘Free Trade and Foreign Policy’, Contemporary Review, 74 (1898), pp. 167–80Google Scholar. References to Cobden appear throughout Hobson’s work, but one of the most explicit appears in Morals of Economic Internationalism (New York, 1920), p. 29.

13 On the influence of sectional interests, see Imperialism: A Study (1902, 1905, 1938; London, 1988), part 1, chs. 4 and 6. For the connection of imperialism and tyranny, see part 2, ch. 1.Google Scholar

14 Imperialism, pp. 86–90, 360.Google Scholar

15 The Modern State (London, 1931), p. 30Google Scholar; Confessions of an Economic Heretic (1938; Brighton, 1976), p. 96, 104Google Scholar; Rationalism and Humanism (London, 1933), p. 31.Google Scholar

16 Rationalism and Humanism, p. 10, 34-46.Google Scholar

17 Rationalism and Humanism, pp. 20–1Google Scholar; Democracy and a Changing Civilisation (London, 1934), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

18 The Recording Angel: A Report from Earth (London, 1932), p. 75.Google Scholar

19 Howard, M., War and the Liberal Conscience (1978; Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar

20 Hobson objected to what he saw as the absolutism of sovereignty. The state draws under one authority the right to decide policy on social, political and economic issues, according to Hobson, without recourse to reason or even to reasonable discussion. Such actions taken by sovereign right were likely to be irrational from the point of view of human welfare, Hobson’s preferred standard. See Free Thought in the Social Sciences (London, 1926), pp. 50–1, 234, 259Google Scholar; Incentives in the New Industrial Order (London, 1922), pp. 150–1.Google Scholar For a recent example of this argument, see Jones, Roy E., ‘The English School of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 7 (1981)Google Scholar, and ‘The Myth of the Special Problem in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 14 (1988).Google Scholar

21 Free Thought in the Social Sciences, p. 257.Google Scholar

22 On international law limiting sovereignty, see The Case for Arbitration (London, 1911), p. 7Google Scholar; Towards International Government (London, 1915), pp. 33, 124-5.Google Scholar

23 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, pp. 134–5Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 180.Google Scholar

24 Towards International Government, pp. 81, 86-7, 178.Google Scholar

25 See James, Alan, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London, 1986).Google Scholar

26 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 139.Google Scholar

27 Notes on Law and Order (London, 1926), pp. 24–5Google Scholar; The Case for Arbitration, p. 7Google Scholar; on functional cooperation, see A League of Nations (London, 1915), p. 2Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 177Google Scholar; Imperialism, p. 167.Google Scholar

28 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 139, 145Google Scholar; The Case for Arbitration, p. 4.Google Scholar

29 Established durin g World War I, this was a group of intellectuals and politicians that criticized the foreign policy of the Great Powers that it claimed had led to the war. See Swartz, Marvin, The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics During the First World War (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

30 Towards International Government, pp. 65, 67-8, and see also p. 7, 70, 169Google Scholar; A League of Nations, p. 15, 20.Google Scholar

31 Free Thought in the Social Sciences, p. 217Google Scholar; Richard Cobden: The International Man (London, 1918), p. 10, 408Google Scholar; Democracy After the War (London, 1919 [1917]), p. 210Google Scholar; The Case for Arbitration, p. 1Google Scholar; The German Panic (London, 1913), p. 23.Google Scholar

32 Towards International Government, pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

33 Richard Cobden, p. 388Google Scholar; Democracy After the War, p. 210Google Scholar; The German Panic, p. 27Google Scholar; A League of Nations, pp. 15–6Google Scholar; Towards International Government, pp. 66–8, 70.Google Scholar

34 Free Thought in the Social Sciences, p. 259Google Scholar; The Crisis of Liberalism (London, 1909), p. 9Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 184—6, 203-6, 211Google Scholar; Confessions of an Economic Heretic, p. 104.Google Scholar

35 A League of Nations, p. 20.Google Scholar See also Towards International Government, pp. 200—1, 209.Google Scholar

36 Confessions of an Economic Heretic, pp. 104–5.Google Scholar

37 For an example, see Holsti, K. J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis (1967; Englewood Cliffs, 1977), ch. 7.Google Scholar

38 Towards International Government, p. 182.Google Scholar

39 Towards International Government, p. 181.Google Scholar

40 Hobson denied that there would be equilibrium, see Towards International Government, p. 182.Google Scholar

41 Incentives in the New Industrial Order, pp. 147–8Google Scholar; see also Democracy After the War, pp. 175–6.Google Scholar

42 Incentives in the New Industrial Order, p. 147–8.Google Scholar

43 Freeden, Michael, New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar See also Allett, John, New Liberalism: The Political Economy of J. A. Hobson (Toronto, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 See Richard Cobden, p. 406.Google Scholar

45 Banks, , ‘The Inter-paradigm Debate’, p. 15.Google Scholar

46 Banks, , ‘The Inter-paradigm Debate’, p. 15.Google Scholar

47 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 145Google Scholar; Confessions of an Economic Heretic, p. 112–3Google Scholar; Notes on Law and Order, p. 24Google Scholar; The Case for Arbitration, p. 8Google Scholar; A League of Nations, p. 14Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 21, 77.Google Scholar On an international police force, see ‘Force Necessary to Government’, Hibbert Journal, 33 (1935), pp. 338—42.Google Scholar

48 A League of Nations, p. 18Google Scholar; Towards International Government, pp. 3—6, 86—7.Google Scholar

49 With regard to anarchy in international relations being based in national sovereignty, see Confessions of an Economic Heretic, p. IIIGoogle Scholar; Free Thought in the Social Sciences, p. 257.Google Scholar For the inadequacy of noninterventionism in the face of the international anarchy, see Confessions of an Economic Heretic, p. 112Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 6, 86.Google Scholar For Hobson’s preference of an international government over a return to anarchy, see Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, pp. 150—1Google Scholar; Towards International Government, pp. 86–7.Google Scholar

50 Notes on Law and Order, p. 25Google Scholar; Towards International Government, pp. 84–8.Google Scholar

51 Towards International Government, pp. 210–1.Google Scholar

52 See Vincent, R. J., Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974), pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

53 An example of this argument appears in Hayek, F. A., The Road to Serfdom (1944; London, 1986), ch. 15.Google Scholar

54 See Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge, 1967), ch. 5.Google Scholar

55 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, pp. 22—3Google Scholar; Wealth and Life (London, 1929), p. 187Google Scholar; The Morals of Economic Internationalism, p. 29Google Scholar; The New Protectionism (London, 1916), p. 116Google Scholar; Economic Interpretation of Investment (London, 1911), pp. 110–12, 117Google Scholar; The German Panic, p. 26Google Scholar; Towards International Government, pp. 134–7Google Scholar.

56 Hobson’s major works in economics are The Evolution of Modern Capitalism (London, 1894)Google Scholar, The Economics of Distribution (New York, 1900)Google Scholar, The Industrial System (London, 1909)Google Scholar, Work and Wealth (London, 1914), and Wealth and Life.Google Scholar

57 Richard Cobden, pp. 9–10, 34-6, 74, 388-9Google Scholar; Democracy After the War, p. 85–6Google Scholar; Imperialism, p. 356, 360Google Scholar; The German Panic, p. 26Google Scholar. On the distinction of inclusive and exclusive nationalism, see Imperialism, p. 10–12Google Scholar. For Hobson’s future perplexity on this issue of economic internationalism and rising political nationalism, see Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 22.Google Scholar

58 See, e.g. Clarke, Peter, Liberals and Social Democrats (Cambridge, 1978), p. 178CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Towards International Government, p. 127–8Google Scholar, though he did not make much advance with regard to the unequal benefits of international exchange. Indeed, his position from Imperialism to the First World War and to some extent beyond, was a more orthodox free trade argument. See Cain, P. J., ‘J. A. Hobson, Cobdenism, and the Radical Theory of Imperialism, 1898–1914’, Economic History Review, 31 (1978), pp. 565–84Google Scholar.

60 This position is similar to that of McKinlay and Little’s ‘compensatory liberalism’ and Suganami’s ‘welfare internationalism’. See McKinlay, R. D. and Little, R., Global Problems and World Order (London, 1986), ch. 2Google Scholar; and Suganami, H., Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Another area where the idealism of new liberal internationalism is betrayed is in Hobson’s paternalist suggestions for international development of ‘backwar d countries’, which was to be guided by an impartial international council in the interests of both the local peoples and the world at large without succumbing to the sectional interests of the capitalist Great Powers. On this issue, see, for instance, Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 134, 145Google Scholar; The Modern State, p. 36Google Scholar; Poverty in Plenty (London, 1931), p. 81Google Scholar; Wealth and Life, p. 403–4Google Scholar.

62 From Capitalism to Socialism (London, 1932) p. 49Google Scholar. See also Free Thought in the Social Sciences, p. 260.Google Scholar

63 A League of Nations, p. 4Google Scholar; see also Imperialism, p. 7Google Scholar; The Casefor Arbitration, p. 2Google Scholar.

64 See The Modern State, p. 31Google Scholar; A League of Nations, p. 12Google Scholar.

65 Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, pp. 134–5Google Scholar.

66 Richard Cobden, p. 406Google Scholar. See also p. 408.

67 Wealth and Life, p. 404Google Scholar.

68 The New Protectionism, pp. 121–2Google Scholar.

69 The Recording Angel, pp. 111–2Google Scholar. See also Democracy and a Changing Civilisation, p. 23Google Scholar.

70 Wealth and Life, pp. 405–6Google Scholar; Work and Wealth, pp. 280–1Google Scholar. See also Wealth and Life, p. 399Google Scholar; Towards International Government, p. 196Google Scholar.

71 See, for example, Clarke, P. F., Liberals and Social Democrats, p. 177Google Scholar; and also Townshend, J., ‘Introduction’ to the 1988 paperback edition of Imperialism, pp. 20𠅓22Google Scholar.

72 For the critique of imperialism as a spirited foreign policy, see ‘Free Trade and Foreign Policy’. On the internationalisation of capital, see Economic Interpretation of Investment.

73 This applies in particular Richard Cobden and The Morals of Economic Internationalism, that might superficially appear to be straightforward tributes to Cobden.

74 See the extensive bibliography of Hobson’s work provided in Lee, A. J. F., ‘The Social and Economic Thought of J. A. Hobson’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1970Google Scholar.

75 See Confessions of an Economic Heretic, ch. 16.

76 See Michael Freeden, New Liberalism; P. F. Clarke, Liberals and Social Democrats; and Weiler, Peter, The New Liberalism (New York, 1982)Google Scholar.

77 This transition is explored at length in my ‘J. A. Hobson on Internationa l Economic Relations: Surplus Value, Free Trade and International Government’, in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis (forthcoming).

78 This is spelled out most clearly in ‘The Morality of Nations’, in The Crisis of Liberalism and The Morals of Economic Internationalism.

79 These are now among the classics of the discipline: E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis; H. Morgenthau, Scientific man vs. Power Politics; Herz, J., Political Realism and Political Idealism (1951; Chicago, 1959)Google Scholar. While Carr refers to utopianism, Morgenthau to liberalism and rationalism, and Herz to idealism, these writers identify a particular body of thought now labelled idealist.

80 Olson, William C., ‘The Growth of a Discipline’, in Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers, p. 23Google Scholar.

81 A similar conclusion can be drawn from Niebuhr, R., ‘Introduction’, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York, 1932)Google Scholar. See, particularly , the wayjn which Morgenthau’s critique of rationalism becomes a set of rigid rules in Morgenthau, H., Power Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn (New York, 1965)Google Scholar.

82 In the haste to reinstate power (or the passions) alongside or over reason In politics, realism Itself became an apolitical theory of international politics. The best example of this Is Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA, 1979)Google Scholar. Thus, international theory under the hegemony of realism has been emptied of politics; the choice is between an ideal polity where the common good is administered and an international balance of power operating according to the logic of micro-economics.

83 The implications of this division for the study of international relations In general are considered in Fred Halliday, ‘State and Society In International Relations: A Second Agenda’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16 (1987)Google Scholar.

84 For examples of the conflation, see Inis Claude, Power in International Relations (New York, 1962)Google Scholar and J. Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism.

85 For example, see Mitrany’s critique of Clarence Streit’s proposals in A Working Peace System, p. 13–16.Google Scholar

86 Carr, , The Twenty Years’ Crisis, ch. 14.Google Scholar Carr’s approach is probably too collectivist for the label New Liberal internationalist. None the less, the influence of New Liberal internationalism is clear. For an exploration of Carr’s ‘idealism’, see Suganami, H., Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals, pp. 101–5Google Scholar. Similarly, Morgenthau, in his introduction to the 1966 edition of Mitrany’s A Working Peace System (Chicago, 1966), advocates functionalism as a route to peace.Google Scholar