Acceso usuarios
The question of endings is simultaneously a question of beginnings: wondering if International Relations is at an end inevitably raises the puzzle of when and how 'it' began. This article argues that International Relations' origins bear striking resemblance to a wider movement in post-war American political studies that Ira Katznelson calls the 'political studies enlightenment.' This story of the field's beginnings and ends has become so misunderstood as to have almost disappeared from histories of the field and accounts of its theoretical orientations and alternatives. This historical forgetting represents one of the most debilitating errors of International Relations theory today, and overcoming it has significant implications for how we think about the past and future development of the field. In particular, it throws open not only our understanding of the place of realism in International Relations, but also our vision of liberalism. For the realism of the International Relations enlightenment did not seek to destroy liberalism as an intellectual and political project, but to save it. The core issue in the 'invention of International Relations theory' -- its historical origins as well as its end or goal in a substantive or normative sense -- was not the assertion of realism in opposition to liberalism: it was, in fact, the defence of a particular kind of liberalism.
