Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:24:52.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L.T. Hobhouse and the transformation of liberal internationalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2014

LEONIE HOLTHAUS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores L. T. Hobhouse's transformation of liberal internationalism at the beginning of the twentieth century. It argues that Hobhouse's thought contributes to understanding dilemmas within the frame of liberal internationalism and the emergence of international functionalism. Using a philosophical approach, Hobhouse tackled international concerns throughout his life, alongside J. A. Hobson, Gilbert Murray, James Bryce, H. N. Brailsford, Norman Angell, and G. L. Dickinson. He restated a belief in human progress and association in ever-greater circles. But he noted, contra former hopes, that nationalism furthered democracy only briefly, and that liberal democracy remained incapable of bringing about effective international cooperation and moral universalism. In order to resolve this impasse, Hobhouse suggested substituting political with economic democracy on an international scale. The aim was to create an international functional organisation consisting of vocational and civic associations and states, which would allow individuals to entertain multiple, overlapping, and transnational loyalties. He thus anticipated proposals for global reform that became increasingly popular after the end of World War II. However, in spite of his concern with domestic social equality and his borrowing from international socialism, Hobhouse failed to qualify his internationalism with an analogous interest in equality.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 705 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2014 

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

1 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Social Development. Its Nature and Conditions (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966 [orig. pub. 1924]), p. 337Google Scholar.

2 Freeden, Michael, Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny (1864–1929) (online edition: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar, available at: {http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101033906/Leonard-Hobhouse}.

3 Sylvest, Casper, British Liberal Internationalism, 1880–1930. Making Progress? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 I do not have space to discuss the problematic evolution of idealism in international relations. For critical accounts of the term, see Ashworth, Lucian M., ‘Where Are the Idealists in Interwar International Relations?’, Review of International Studies, 32:2 (2006), pp. 291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Peter, ‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate”’, Review of International Studies, 24:5 (1998), pp. 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Peter, ‘Where we are now in the debate about the first great debate’, in Schmidt, Brian (ed.), International Relations and the First Great Debate (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 133–51Google Scholar.

5 Howe, Mark D., Holmes-Laski Letters. The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Harold J. Laski 1916–35 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 391Google Scholar.

6 I expect that some oppose drawing a distinction between Hobhouse's philosophical and political works given that he was a ‘public moralist’. And although I agree that he reasoned the same ends at both levels of thought, I still claim that the different kinds of argument merit the difference drawn.

7 My choice of terms rightly implies that I view Michael Freeden's and Mark Bevir's methodological work on ideology and tradition as complementary and not mutually exclusive. See Freeden, Michael, Ideologies and Political Theory. A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Bevir, Mark, ‘On Tradition’, Humanitas, XIII: 2, pp. 28–53Google Scholar.

8 Hall, Ian, Dilemmas in Decline. British Intellectuals and World Politics, 1945–1975 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), ch. 2Google Scholar.

9 Green, Thomas H., ‘Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation’, in Harris, Paul and Morrow, John (eds), Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 13–193, 134Google Scholar.

10 Varouxakis, , ‘“Patriotism”, “Cosmopolitanism” and “Humanity” in Victorian Political Thought’, European Journal of Political Theory, 5:2 (2006), pp. 100–18, 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Recchia, Stefano and Urbinati, Nadia, ‘Introduction’, in Recchia, Stefano and Urbinati, Nadia (eds), A Cosmopolitanism of Nations. Guiseppe Mazzini's Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 1–30, 18Google Scholar.

12 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Ethical Evolution. Review of “The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas” by Edward Westermarck’, Sociological Review, II (1909), pp. 402–5, 404CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Bell, Duncan, ‘The Victorian Idea of a Global State’, in Bell, Duncan (ed.), Victorian Visions of Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 159–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Nicholson, Peter P., ‘Philosophical Idealism and International Politics. A Reply to Dr. Savigear’, British Journal of International Studies, 2:1 (1976), pp. 76–83, 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Green, ‘Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation’, p. 138.

16 Bell, Duncan and Sylvest, Casper, ‘International Society in Victorian Political Thought: T. H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick’, Modern Intellectual History, 3:2 (2006), pp. 207–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Curtis, Lionel, The Commonwealth of Nations. An Inquiry into the Nature of Citizenship in the British Empire, and into the Mutual Relations of the Several Communities Thereof (London: Macmillan, 1916)Google Scholar.

18 Bell, Duncan, ‘Empire and Imperialism’, in Jones, Gareth S. and Claeys, Gregory (eds), The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 864–92, 870CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Urbinati, Nadia, ‘Mazzini and the Making of the Republican Ideology’, Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 17:2 (2012), pp. 183–204, 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Freeden, Michael, ‘Liberal Community. An Essay in Retrieval’, in Simhony, Avital and Weinstein, David (eds), The New Liberalism. Reconciling Liberty and Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 26–48, 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Freeden, Michael, ‘Biological and Evolutionary Roots of the New Liberalism in England’, Political Theory, 4:4 (1976), pp. 471–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Collingwood, Robin G., An Autobiography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), p. 31Google Scholar.

23 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Mind in Evolution (London: Macmillan & Co., 1901), p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Morals in Evolution. A Study in Comparative Ethics (London: Chapman & Hall, 1951 [orig. pub. 1906]), p. 1Google Scholar.

25 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘The Ethical Basis of Collectivism’, International Journal of Ethics, 8:2 (1898), pp. 137–56, 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Cowen, Michael P. and Shenton, Robert W., Doctrines of Development (London/New York, NY: Routledge, 1996), p. 280CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Smith, J. A. and Field, Guy C., ‘Symposium. The Place of Mind in Nature’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 6 (1926), pp. 112–41, 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Development and Purpose (Grosse Pointe, MI: Scholarly Press, 1969 [orig. pub. 1913]), p. xixGoogle Scholar; Ginsberg, Morris, The Unity of Mankind (London: Humphrey Milford, 1935)Google Scholar; Claeys, Gregory, Imperial Sceptics. British Critics of Empire, 1850–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Carr, Edward H., The Twentieth Years' Crisis, 1919–1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), p. 5Google Scholar; Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Science and Philosophy as Unifying Forces’, in Marvin, F. S. (ed.), The Unity of Western Civilisation (London: Milford, 1936 [orig pub. 1915]), pp. 162–79Google Scholar.

30 Freeden, Michael, Liberalism Divided. A Study in British Political Thought 1914–1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Social Evolution and Political Theory (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1922 [orig. pub. 1911]), pp. 128–43Google Scholar.

32 Hobhouse, Leonard T., The Elements of Social Justice (London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press, 1993 [orig. pub. 1922]), p. 195Google Scholar; Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 55.

33 Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß einer verstehenden Soziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), p. 124Google Scholar

34 Hobhouse, Social Evolution and Political Theory, p. 137.

35 Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 66.

36 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Liberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945 [orig. pub. 1911]), p. 7Google Scholar.

37 Morefield, Jeanne, Covenants without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 32Google Scholar.

38 Hobhouse, Leonard T., Democracy and Reaction (Brighton: The Harvester Press, 1972 [orig. pub. 1904]), p. 193Google Scholar.

39 Morefield, Covenants without Swords, p. 77.

40 Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 64.

41 Hobhouse, Social Development, p. 308; Collini, Stefan, Liberalism and Sociology. L. T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in England 1880–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 114Google Scholar.

42 Hobhouse, Social Evolution and Political Theory, p. 150.

43 Duncan Bell, ‘The Victorian Idea of a Global State’.

44 With regard to current debates, it is noteworthy that Hobhouse approach undermines the liberalism – communitarianism divide. For critical evaluations of this debate see Caney, Simon, ‘Liberalism and Communitarianism: a Misconceived Debate’, Political Studies, 40:2 (1992), pp. 273–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simhony, Avital and Weinstein, David (eds), The New Liberalism. Reconciling Liberty and Community, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 He spoke of community as a form of society when there is a social life with some form of common organisation. See Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Sociology’, in Ginsberg, Morris (ed.), Sociology and Philosophy. A Centenary Collection of Essays and Articles (London: The London School of Economics and Political Science, 1966), pp. 21–58Google Scholar; Hobhouse, Social Development, p. 51.

46 Hobhouse, Social Development, p. 167; Hobhouse, Social Evolution and Political Theory, p. 94.

47 Gaus, Gerald, The Modern Liberal Theory of Man (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p. 37Google Scholar.

48 Freeden, ‘Liberal Community’, p. 34.

49 Hobhouse, Liberalism, pp. 125–6.

50 Only Laski eventually admitted the corporative status of groups.

51 Weinstein, David, Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Hobhouse, Leonard T., The Labour Movement (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974 [orig. pub. 1893])Google Scholar.

53 Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 362.

54 Leonard T. Hobhouse, Letter to Gilbert Murray (1885), Oxford University, Bodleian Library, Gilbert Murray Papers. Letters to Gilbert Murray.

55 Jackson, Ben, Equality and the British Left. A Study in Progressive Political Thought, 1900–64 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011), p. 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 den Otter, Sandra M., ‘“Thinking in Communities”. Late Ninetheenth-Century Liberals, Idealists and the Retrieval of Community’, Parliamentary History, 16:1 (1997), pp. 67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Wilson, Peter, ‘Gilbert Murray and International Relations: Hellenism, liberalism, and International Intellectual Cooperation as a Path to Peace’, Review of International Studies, 37:2 (2011), pp. 881–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘The Right to a Living Wage’, in Temple, William (ed.), The industrial unrest and the living wage, A series of lectures given at the Inter-dominantal Summer School, held at Swanwick, Derbyshire, June 28th–July 5th, 1913 (London: The Collegium, 1914), pp. 63–75Google Scholar.

59 Hobhouse, Liberalism, p. 197.

60 In Hobhouse's thought the common good and liberal rights correlate with and check each other. For differing, fascist use of functionalism, see Stears, Marc, ‘Guild Socialism’, in Bevir, Mark (ed.), Modern Pluralism. Anglo-American Debates Since 1880 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 The Fabian Society (1884) was one of the most important socialist advocates in Britain, supporting an elitist socialism that aimed at common ownership and bureaucratic governance.

62 Sylvest, Casper, ‘“Our passion for legality”. International Law and Imperialism in Late Nineteenth-century Britain’, Review of International Studies, 34:3 (2008), pp. 403–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Ayerst, David, Guardian. Biography of a Newspaper (London: Collins, 1971)Google Scholar.

64 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘The Foreign Policy of Collectivism’, Economic Review, 4 (1899), pp. 197–220Google Scholar.

65 Hobhouse, ‘The Foreign Policy of Collectivism’, p. 204.

66 Long, David, ‘J. A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17:3 (1991), pp. 285–304, 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Hobhouse, ‘The Foreign Policy of Collectivism’, p. 214.

68 He maintains this view. See also Leonard T. Hobhouse, ‘Cobden's Letters’, The Manchester Guardian (3 April 1919).

69 Bell, Duncan, ‘Democracy and Empire: J. A. Hobson, Leonard Hobhouse, and the Crisis of Liberalism’, in Hall, Ian and Hill, Lisa (eds), British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 181–206, 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Leonard T. Hobhouse, ‘Democracy and Empire’, The Speaker: The Liberal Review (18 October 1902), pp. 75–6.

71 Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, p. 147.

72 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Democracy and Nationality’, The Speaker: The Liberal Review, 5:119 (1902), pp. 415–6Google Scholar; Urbinati, Nadia, ‘The Legacy of Kant: Guiseppe Mazzini's Cosmopolitanism of Nations’, in Bayly, Christopher A. and Biagini, Eugenio F. (eds), Guiseppe Mazzini and the Globalisation of Democratic Nationalism 1820–1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) pp. 11–36, 22Google Scholar.

73 Hobhouse, Liberalism, p. 235.

74 Bell, Duncan, The Idea of Greater Britain. Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860–1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007). p. 12Google Scholar.

75 Claeys, Imperial Sceptics, p. 243.

76 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Democracy and Imperialism’, The Speaker: The Liberal Review, 5:120 (1902), pp. 443–4Google Scholar.

77 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Democracy and Liberty’, The Speaker: The Liberal Review, 5:118 (1902), pp. 388–9Google Scholar.

78 Bell, ‘Democracy and Empire’, p. 189.

79 Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, p. 195.

80 Sylvest, Casper, ‘Continuity and Change in British Liberal Internationalism, c. 1990–1930’, Review of International Studies, 31:2 (2005), pp. 263–83, 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Hobhouse, ‘The Ethical Basis of Collectivism’, p. 155.

82 Hobhouse, Liberalism, p. 236.

83 Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, p. 83.

84 Ayerst, Guardian, p. 378; Hoeres, Peter, ‘Die Ursachen der deutschen Gewaltpolitik in britischer Sicht. Eine frühe Sonderwegsdebatte’, in Becker, Frank, GroÞboelting, Thomas, Owzar, Armin, and Schlögl, Rudolf (eds), Politische Gewalt in der Moderne. Festschrift für Hans-Ulrich Thamer (Muenster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2003), pp. 193–211Google Scholar.

85 Hobhouse, Leonard T., The World in Conflict (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1915)Google Scholar; Hobhouse, Leonard T., Questions of War and Peace (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1916)Google Scholar.

86 Hobhouse, The World in Conflict, p. 100.

87 Hobson, John A., Democracy after the War (London: George Allan & Unwin, 1917)Google Scholar; Angell, Norman, Prussianism and its Destruction (London: William Heinemann, 1914)Google Scholar; Zimmern, Alfred, Nationality & Government With Other WarTime Essays (London: Chatto & Windus, 1918)Google Scholar; Bryce, Viscount, ‘Opening Address’, in Bryce, Viscout (ed.), The International Crisis. The Theory of the State. Volume 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1916), pp. 1–8Google Scholar.

88 Smith, Harold, ‘World War I and British Left Wing Intellectuals. The Case of Leonard T. Hobhouse’, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 5:4 (1973), pp. 261–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Hobhouse, Leonard T., The Metaphysical Theory of the State. A Criticism (London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press, 1993 [orig. pub. 1918]), p. 59Google Scholar.

90 Hobhouse, Metaphysical Theory of the State, p. 119.

91 Burns, Cecil D., Russell, Bertrand and Cole, G.D.H., ‘Symposium. The Nature of the State in View of its External Relations’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 16 (1915–1916), pp. 290–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Freeden, ‘Liberal Community’, p. 34.

93 Nicholson, ‘Philosophical Idealism and International Politics’, p. 80; Bosanquet, Bernard, ‘Patriotism and the Perfect State. In. The International Crisis in its Ethical and Psychological Aspects’, Lectures delivered in February and March 1915 (London: Humphrey/Milford Oxford University Press, 1915), pp. 132–54, 145Google Scholar.

94 Michael Freeden, Liberalism Divided, p. 37.

95 Green, ‘Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation’, p. 124.

96 Hobhouse, Metaphysical Theory of the State, p. 110.

97 Taylor, A. E., ‘Review. The Metaphysical Theory of the State by L. T. Hobhouse’, Mind: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy, 29:113 (1920), pp. 91–105, 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Bosanquet, ‘Patriotism and the Perfect State’, p. 137.

99 Bosanquet, Bernard, Social and International Ideals. Being Studies in Patriotism (London: Macmillan, 1968)Google Scholar.

100 Hobhouse, Questions of War and Peace, p. 191.

101 Sylvest, Casper, ‘Beyond the State? Pluralism and Internationalism in Early Twentieth-Century Britain’, International Relations, 21:1 (2007), pp. 67–85, 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Freeden, Liberalism Divided, p. 364.

103 Hobhouse, Metaphysical Theory of the State, p. 137; Freeden, Liberalism Divided, p. 42.

104 Hobhouse, Social Evolution and Political Theory.

105 Cole, G.D.H., Social Theory (Tylers Greenhill/High Wycombe: University Microfilms, 1920)Google Scholar.

106 Hobhouse, Elements of Social Justice, p. 202.

107 Ibid., pp. 202–3.

108 The observation questions whether the term liberal socialism is adequate to describe Hobhouse and other internationalists. One should expect that a (international) socialist is concerned with equality on an international scale. Hobhouse opposed the exploitation of the colonies, but did not use the notion of equality much to make sense of international relations. For the term liberal socialism as a heuristic tool to analyse inter-war see internationalists see Ashworth, Lucian, ‘The Poverty of Paradigms: Subcultures, Trading Zones and the Case of Liberal Socialism in Interwar International Relations’, International Relations, 26:1 (2012), pp. 35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Hobhouse, Leonard T., ‘Democracy and Civilisation’, Sociological Review, XIII (1921), pp. 125–35, 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Hobhouse, World in Conflict, p. 63.

111 Hobhouse, Social Development, p. 300.

112 Hobhouse, ‘Democracy and Civilisation’, p. 126.

113 Hobhouse, The Elements of Social Justice, p. 195; Sylvest, Casper, ‘James Bryce and the Two Faces of Nationalism’, in Hall, Ian and Hill, Lisa (eds), British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 161–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114 Hobhouse, ‘Democracy and Civilization’, p 129.

115 Poirier, Philip P., ‘Introduction’, in Poirier, Philip P. (ed.), The Labour Movement (New York, NY: Barnes and Nobles, 1974), pp. vii–xxivGoogle Scholar.

116 As Cole did, Hobhouse admitted that his proposal necessitated a high degree of public administration to coordinate self-governing associations. However, he seemed to assume that administration is tolerable when it comes with some kind of economic democracy. A ‘functional organisation’ promised to reconcile bureaucracy and democracy in producing a decentralised public administration that is not beyond, but expressive of civic activism and public control. See also Meadowcroft, James, ‘The New Liberal Conception of the State’, in Simhony, Avital and Weinstein, David (eds), Reconciling Liberty and Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 115–36, 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 More recently, Toni Erskine reconciled communitarians' views on embedded selves with the cosmopolitan appreciation of various transnational or non-territorial group memberships. I believe that such a position is largely compatible with the moral views formulated by Hobhouse. On embedded cosmopolitanism see Erskine, Toni, Embedded Cosmopolitanism Duties to Strangers and Enemies in a World of ‘Dislocated Communities’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

118 Mitrany, David, Food and Freedom (London: The Batchworth Press, 1954)Google Scholar.

119 Mitrany, David, The Progress of International Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933)Google Scholar; Scheuerman, William E., ‘The (Classical) Realist Vision of Global Reform’, International Theory, 2:2 (2010), pp. 246–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.