Ren Dongbo and Feng Shuai: Intellectuality and Sociality: The Sociology of Knowledge Logic in the British School of International Relations Research
I. Introduction
In 1949, the renowned American sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed out that the primary value of the sociology of knowledge lies in its ability to provide an analytical framework for clarifying the chaos of a society filled with cultural conflicts, value disputes, and divergent perspectives. Transposing this view to the field of International Relations (IR) is equally illuminating. The complex and multifaceted nature of international relations, the volatile global situation, and the "rivalry" [1] between different IR theories make the field an excellent "testing ground" for the sociology of knowledge.
However, the domestic [Chinese] academic community has not attached sufficient importance to the referential value of the sociology of knowledge for IR research, nor has it reached a consensus on this matter. Only a few domestic scholars, such as Li Kaisheng, Zhao Siyang, Shi Xianze, and Huang Chen, have investigated the logic and evolution of the sociology of knowledge from perspectives such as the institutional construction of the Chinese School (i.e., the Chinese school of IR theory), the evolution of Chinese IR studies, Anglo-American IR studies, and the development of Chinese political thought.
In contrast, foreign scholars began using the sociology of knowledge in IR research earlier and have produced more abundant results, primarily manifested in two areas. The first is the exploration of the relationship between state power, the international situation, and the discipline of IR. Such research attempts to uncover the hidden relationship between political power and the academic development of IR, with particular focus on the issue of U.S. hegemony and its academic discourse power. After Stanley Hoffmann first questioned the intellectual hegemony of American IR, the academic community engaged in extensive discussion. In 2000, Steve Smith revisited this issue. After a detailed analysis of the three major trends in IR—rationalism, reflectivism, and social constructivism—he found that although the British academic community had made prominent contributions to IR, the American academic community still dominated the discipline. Scholars such as Robert M.A. Crawford, Darryl S.L. Jarvis, Brian Schmidt, and Helen Louise Turton hold similar views to Smith. The second area involves the attempt to construct and interpret unique local IR discourse systems based on the argumentative logic and presupposition of resisting American academic hegemony, emphasizing localized [2] IR research that differs from the American mainstream. In recent years, such research has focused particularly on the development of the English School, the French School, the Chinese School, the German School, Russian IR, Japanese IR, and Latin American IR, arguing that IR studies in different countries or regions possess uniqueness and should occupy a certain academic position and obtain corresponding academic discourse power in the global intellectual space. Although these two research trends differ in their core concerns and argumentative logic, both point toward the production of IR knowledge itself.
In summary, domestic interdisciplinary application and analysis of the sociology of knowledge in the field of IR has begun, but no specialized sociology of knowledge analysis of the English School has yet appeared. Although Li Kaisheng's article on the construction of the Chinese School mentions the English School, it treats it more as a reference case for analysis, with relatively little discussion of the English School's knowledge production itself. Foreign research is more abundant and often draws on theoretical perspectives from the sociology of knowledge, but research using social network theory to analyze IR theoretical schools—especially the English School—is still rare. From the perspective of social network theory within the sociology of knowledge, the English School is a "socio-intellectual" network structure that centrally embodies the two major characteristics of the sociology of knowledge: its intellectual nature (知识性) and its social nature (社会性). The intellectual nature emphasizes the English School's important role as a producer, disseminator, and reflector of IR knowledge, highlighting the endogenous tendencies of its knowledge production. The social nature refers to the various social connections of the English School, manifested in the close links between its knowledge production and various social factors such as the world situation and the academic community. Logically, the two are not diametrically opposed or severed from one another; in fact, they are both independent and interrelated, both internalized within the concrete practice of the English School's IR research.
II. The International Situation and the English School's Academic Agenda
Real-world disputes in the social sphere are inevitably reflected in the realm of thought, and the generation and application of knowledge provide an excellent point of entry for presenting and understanding social change. The emergence and development of the English School was not purely the result of the operation of intellectual logic; there is a profound historical background behind it, and the social environment undoubtedly influenced its knowledge production and ideological shifts. Specifically, the complex and turbulent historical evolution and international situation of the 20th century profoundly shaped the English School's construction path and intellectual agenda.
- Changes in Britain's International Status and the Impact of the Cold War
The emergence and development of the English School were deeply influenced by the change in Britain's international status after World War II and the impact of the Cold War. The appearance of the English School was closely related to the decline of Britain's international standing after WWII. Following the end of the war, the world power structure was completely transformed. As the former hegemon of Europe, Britain found it difficult to maintain the "glory and honor of an empire on which the sun never sets," gradually declining from a first-rate world power to a second-rate nation. At the same time, the process of decolonization within the British Empire from the late 1950s to the 1970s, and the subsequent shift toward deeper involvement in the European Economic Community (EEC), brought about major changes in British thinking regarding the nature of international politics. Therefore, faced with the objective reality of the country's declining strength and the new situation of global power transition, the general British social mentality tended toward being "calm and collected" [3] and "observing the world dispassionately" [4]. The intellectual inclinations and research preferences of the British IR academic community shifted accordingly. After WWII, the British IR community relatively reduced its discussion of themes such as hegemony and empire, turning instead to emphasize intellectual topics such as international society, international cooperation, international law, and peaceful development. William A. Callahan regards the English School as an intellectual response tailored to Britain's post-war political planning. The English School was a product of the era, born under the specific historical processes, social contexts, and academic atmospheres of the post-war period.
The period from 1959 to 1991 constitutes the "Classical English School" period in academic history. At that time, the Cold War was at its height, and the primary starting point for countries conducting international affairs was the maintenance of national interests and ideology. Mainstream American IR theory was "at the height of its power," [5] manifested primarily in new developments within the two major theoretical systems of realism and liberalism. Although the English School did not focus as intensely on practical diplomatic issues as mainstream American IR did, its academic agenda and the shifts in its members' intellectual thought were invisibly subject to the potential influence of the Cold War. First, although the English School did not dedicate itself to serving practical power, it maintained long-term attention to and reflection on the Cold War and other major international issues. For example, the series of studies on "international society" was initiated and expanded during this period, developing into the core agenda of the English School; topics such as international order, justice, hegemony, colonialism, and cultural identity also occupied a core position in the school. Second, the intellectual shifts of classical English School members were also closely related to the Cold War. Taking the school's founder, Herbert Butterfield, as an example: initially, Butterfield enjoyed international fame as a renowned diplomatic historian; after 1948, he turned to religious and historical studies, and subsequently to philosophy. Butterfield later admitted that his turn to philosophical research was primarily based on two major crises appearing in the West at the time: one was the intense ideological challenge posed by the Soviet Union; the other was the predicament of the West as a "panic-stricken maintainer of the status quo, clinging to an ancient civilization to resist the encroachment of certain new things." The case of Martin Wight is also representative. During WWII, Wight explored the administration and legal issues of British colonies and participated in a series of studies on British colonial constitutions. During the Cold War, alongside national independence movements, the wave of anti-colonialism, and the emergence of the Third World bloc, his research gradually shifted to exploring the issues of "civilization" and "barbarism" in international society. This topic was later expanded into the "Standard of Civilization" series of studies formally initiated by Gerrit W. Gong, which remains a subject of heated discussion. Furthermore, in his book Systems of States, in addition to discussing the three major state systems—the Greco-Roman system, the Chinese Spring and Autumn and Warring States system, and the modern Western system—Wight specifically included a chapter exploring the tripartite relationship between China, the U.S., and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In Wight's best-known work, Power Politics, the keywords are state power and international politics; the book further explores many intellectual topics directly related to the Cold War, such as the United Nations, disarmament, arms control, and international intervention. Thus, the turbulent Cold War structure and complex historical processes of the second half of the 20th century profoundly influenced the research scope and selection of key topics by classical English School members.
- The End of the Cold War and the Impact of the Information Age
The end of the Cold War indirectly provided a suitable opportunity for the rise of the English School, while the Information Age greatly accelerated the dissemination of its knowledge. Changes in the international situation re-triggered internal adjustments of different intellectual positions, favoring the establishment and development of certain academic factions, intellectual groups, and their knowledge networks. In essence, this meant a reorganization of the intellectual space of IR.
In the post-Cold War era, the focus of research in the IR academic community was no longer the maintenance of hegemony and power struggles; pluralism became the new trend of historical development. This trend, accompanied by economic globalization, internet-based informatization, and the trend toward intelligent communications, increasingly became an academic consensus. The IR academic community began a conscious process of disciplinary introspection, theoretical reflection, and intellectual dialogue, as seen in the rise of research into the history of the IR discipline, the emergence of a European perspective in IR, and the pursuit of its own intellectual identity and academic status. With its unique research style, long-term focus on international society, and the large number of outstanding achievements that emerged during the Cold War, the English School became the European theoretical school that received the most attention and frequent exchange from mainstream American IR circles. In the post-Cold War era, the development of globalization prompted the international academic community to become increasingly aware of the importance of common interests, international institutions, international culture, and international norms. The most discussed topics in the field of IR centered on international order, international justice, and peaceful development. This is precisely one of the intellectual advantages of the English School; due to its long-term focus on concepts and issues such as norms, rules, institutions, identity, international culture, international ethics, and international society, the English School met this objective demand well.
The end of the Cold War caused a profound and sustained chain reaction within the discipline of IR, one of which was the readjustment of the global intellectual space of IR, through which the English School regained opportunities for development. From the establishment of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (hereafter referred to as the British Committee) in 1959 to the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States dominated the developmental direction of IR for a long time, possessing absolute academic discourse power, whereas "the writings of British scholars, which had once been a major source of IR ideas, concepts, and interpretations, had declined to a position of relative insignificance." Although the English School produced a succession of excellent results during this period, it was long ignored by the American IR academic community. This situation did not improve until the end of the Cold War. Due to widespread academic dissatisfaction with the ahistorical tone of mainstream American IR theory, a new generation of English School scholars, including Barry Buzan, successfully utilized this opportunity to become one of the few powerful competitors to mainstream theory by reorganizing academic groups, repositioning themselves, and networking their knowledge. They changed the English School's marginal status under American discursive hegemony and successfully achieved global diffusion. Amitav Acharya also believes that in the 1990s and the period following, the English School began to move beyond Britain and became an IR theoretical school with greater global recognition.
Distinct from the intellectual style of the British Committee, which focused particularly on the humanist tradition, the New English School has developed more diverse political and theoretical styles. According to different research orientations and intellectual characteristics, the New English School can be divided into three categories. First, represented by Barry Buzan, Richard Little, and Cornelia Navari, these scholars uphold a pluralist methodology. They attempt to combine English School theory with structural realism, constructivism, and historical sociology to re-excavate the two major intellectual issues of world society and regional international societies. Second, scholars such as Tim Dunne, Nicholas Wheeler, and Christian Reus-Smit strive to incorporate constructivist perspectives into English School theory. They tend to believe that the theoretical core of the English School is closely related to the basic characteristics of constructivism, and that international society itself is a social construct. Third, scholars like Robert Jackson, Andrew Hurrell, and Edward Keene reaffirm the research tradition of the classical English School, but focus on studying international society from the perspective of the history of international thought. They primarily employ hermeneutic methods to explore the meaning of a global order constructed by rules and institutions. Compared with the classical English School, the practice of international relations in the post-Cold War era has enabled the English School to open up a broader range of issue areas. The rapid popularization of communication technologies, including the internet, has also greatly promoted the dissemination of English School thought. The research methods and intellectual issues of the New English School have expanded significantly; meanwhile, the New English School engages more frequently and proactively in intellectual exchange and academic dialogue with the American mainstream international relations community, while maintaining good relations with scholars from the Global South, including China. Consequently, the New English School has demonstrated a vigorous trend of development, glowing with new academic vitality. Regarding academic status, since the end of the 20th century, the New English School has received increasing attention from the international relations community. The academic ranks of the English School continue to grow, and its academic influence continues to expand, forming a global picture of knowledge dissemination and demonstrating a symbiotic relationship between intellectuality and sociality.
III. The English School as an Academic Community
The sociology of knowledge focuses on the subjects of intellectual activity—the intellectuals, whom its academic founder Karl Mannheim called "socially unattached intellectuals." This group has weak class affiliations and can maintain a unique sensitivity to social reality, allowing them to preserve, utilize, and absorb various ideological and cultural achievements from history and reality. The composition of the intellectual group, its modes of recruitment, its status and prestige, and its social activities are precisely the key issues for further exploration in the sociology of knowledge. Therefore, exploring the emergence and development of the English School as an academic community can serve as a viable path for understanding and interpreting its knowledge production and academic lineage. Specifically, the English School academic community has benefited from several research organizations, foundations, and various universities.
01 The British Committee
From the perspective of the normative construction of an academic community, the British Committee [6] marked the beginning of the academic institutionalization of the English School. The British Committee provided the organizational foundation for the emergence of the English School, uniting a large number of scholars to explore intellectual issues of common concern. Buzan and Acharya believe that the English School formed in the late 1950s when the Rockefeller Foundation funded the British Committee to hold various academic conferences. Richard Little goes further, equating the British Committee with the English School itself.
The British Committee was formally established at the University of Cambridge in 1959 and lasted for 26 years until the death of Hedley Bull in 1985. Herbert Butterfield actively facilitated the establishment of the British Committee, and Martin Wight provided the primary intellectual leadership at its inception. This role of intellectual leadership was subsequently taken over by Bull and Adam Watson, while the current organizational leader and pioneer of new issues is Buzan. The starting point of the British Committee was neither focusing on the practical utility of international relations theory nor establishing an all-encompassing general theoretical framework, but rather exploring the fundamental ideas behind diplomatic activities, the reasons for foreign policy formulation, and issues of international ethics. The organization brought together a group of like-minded scholars from different fields to focus on the nature, state, and history of international society and the international system. In terms of promoting members' academic creation, the British Committee encouraged members to conduct research that was relatively independent yet mutually informative, most notably the International Society research group based at the London School of Economics (LSE). In terms of intergenerational academic inheritance, the British Committee facilitated connections between several generations of English School scholars. Meanwhile, its internal discussions involved many topics that would later become hot topics—such as international society, international systems, and international norms—opening the door for English School academic research. It can thus be said that the British Committee promoted the construction of the English School as an academic community.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the English School had already exerted influence within the British international relations community and formed a distinct school of thought. By the 1990s, Buzan attempted to reconstruct a formal academic organization similar to the British Committee to conduct regular seminars. Although this was ultimately terminated due to a lack of funding, it invisibly strengthened the sense of community within the school. Today, compared to the academic societies of the 1970s and 1980s which were limited to specific members and timeframes, the New English School is more like a global academic network. As scholars from different intellectual backgrounds continue to join, it demonstrates theoretical continuity and academic openness.
02 The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation provided financial support for the British Committee to establish its own research path and intellectual agenda, laying a solid foundation for the formation and development of the English School academic community. In May 1954, the Social Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation held a meeting and decided to fund outstanding scholars in the field of international relations, encouraging them to study the general theory of international politics. Subsequently, the American Committee was established, dedicated to establishing international relations as an independent discipline. It focused on the fundamental issues of international relations theory and applied specific theoretical techniques to analyze them to help formulate American foreign policy. Its members included Kenneth Thompson, George Kennan, Arnold Wolfers, and Hans Morgenthau. While serving as Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Thompson hoped to establish a similar academic organization in Britain to jointly study international theoretical issues. In June 1956, when Butterfield went to Columbia University to attend a meeting of the American Committee, Thompson spoke with him in detail about this matter. The two met again in October of that year and finalized the specific details for establishing the British Committee—the convener would be Butterfield, and Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he was based, was selected as the organizational headquarters and meeting venue. There were 6 to 8 formal members to collectively explore fundamental issues of international political theory.
In January 1959, the British Committee held its first meeting, marking the formal establishment of the academic organization. Simultaneously, the Rockefeller Foundation began providing an annual grant of £650. The Rockefeller Foundation extended the funding several times to ensure the normal operation of the British Committee; considering potential additional costs, the foundation increased the allocation on several occasions.
The contribution of the Rockefeller Foundation to the British Committee lay not only in financial support but also in the fact that it did not exert pressure on the British Committee's research projects or publications. When the development paths and focuses of the British Committee and the American Committee diverged, the Rockefeller Foundation still actively promoted the British Committee's various academic activities, enabling it to gradually establish its own unique intellectual issues, research methods, and academic style. In contrast, the American Committee eventually disbanded due to "discursive rambling, discord, conceptual ambiguity, disagreement on fundamental concepts, and many deep reflections reaching no conclusion." In this regard, Dunne believes that the arguments between theorists and practitioners within the American Committee led to its early dissolution, whereas the British Committee lasted longer because it maintained a certain distance from policy issues. By creating a series of research priorities and conducting regular or occasional meetings, the British Committee fostered a sense of intellectual community.
In 1977, the Rockefeller Foundation announced it would stop funding the British Committee, which then turned to the Ford Foundation for support. In February 1978 and January 1979, Bull wrote twice to the Ford Foundation, hoping it would fund the British Committee's research on the evolution of the European international order. In October 1979, the Ford Foundation agreed to Bull’s application, stating it would provide three years of funding. The Ford Foundation provided a total of $52,200 to the British Committee. Therefore, the two major foundations provided the necessary financial support for the early development of the English School, ensuring the normal conduct of the British Committee’s academic activities and the smooth publication of classical works.
03 University Strongholds
Multiple universities and departments, including Peterhouse at the University of Cambridge, the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford, and the Australian National University, have all played important organizational roles in the development and growth of the English School. This has been crucial for the mentor-disciple relationships and the intergenerational continuity of academic thought within the school.
Peterhouse, Cambridge, best represents the early institutional environment of the English School. Butterfield, the first convener of the British Committee, was then the Master of Peterhouse. It was through his initiative and organization that Peterhouse became the venue for numerous meetings of the British Committee between 1958 and 1968. As one of the birthplaces of the English School, the Department of International Relations at LSE has contributed most to talent cultivation and academic inheritance, and the scholars trained there became the backbone of the English School. Butterfield, Wight, Bull, John Vincent, Michael Donelan, Adam Roberts, and James Mayall have all taught in this department, and the current convener of the English School, Buzan, also teaches there now. At the same time, the English School's robust mentor-disciple relationships have primarily benefited from this department. Butterfield was a member of the dissertation committee when Wight was studying history at Oxford and provided Wight with long-term support and assistance in his research. Contemporary Japanese-British scholar Hidemi Suganami also studied at LSE. Peter Wilson believes that the English School formed a close-knit group of intellectuals based at LSE in the 1950s and 1960s, using the concept of international society as a key feature for understanding world politics. LSE ensured the smooth intergenerational transmission of English School academic research and maintained the consistency and coherence of its theoretical ideas. Today, under the leadership of Buzan, LSE has become one of the academic strongholds of the English School.
The University of Oxford is another intellectual center of the English School and has long participated in discussions on related topics. Wight graduated from Hertford College, Oxford, in 1935 and taught at Nuffield College, Oxford, from 1941 to 1946, focusing primarily on colonial constitutionalism. Donald Mackinnon, one of the original members of the English School, was a colleague of Wight at Oxford. Bull also served as a visiting scholar at Oxford from 1975 to 1976. Robert Jervis’s student, Yongjin Zhang [7], who currently teaches at the University of Bristol, earned his doctorate at Oxford under Bull’s supervision. Furthermore, Aberystwyth University and the Australian National University—where scholars such as Dunne, Suganami, and Wheeler have taught—have maintained long-term academic ties with the English School, thereby expanding its membership and academic network.
Today, the English School receives increasing attention not only within British International Relations (IR) but also globally; it can be said to have pioneered a unique and systematic approach to IR research. Regarding the distribution of knowledge, the English School has followed the trend of the global dissemination of knowledge systems, utilizing the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE) as its primary intellectual stronghold to construct a global knowledge network. This network was initially called for and organized by Buzan, after which more and more scholars joined voluntarily. This stands in marked contrast to the operational model of the British Committee, which functioned as an exclusive "elite club": it is neither a closed academic group with restricted membership nor an IR theory school exclusive to a single nation or state. Although the knowledge network of the New English School is loose, it is more open, diverse, and global, with members scattered across major universities, professional institutions, and intellectual circles worldwide. At the same time, members possess a strong sense of school identity and academic community; as Emanuel Adler noted, the New English School is "a heterogeneous community of scholars from many countries who proudly identify with this school."
In terms of academic influence, the New English School conducts extensive academic discussions across various platforms, increasingly strengthening its links with the international academic community. High levels of attention are currently paid to the New English School in Denmark, Germany, and Italy, while specialized institutions for the study of the English School exist in Norway, Turkey, and Israel. In Canada and Australia, the English School holds a stable position; meanwhile, academic circles in India, China, Japan, and South Korea have shown intense interest in recent years and have engaged in active academic dialogue with it. Regarding academic recognition, the New English School has proactively carved out intellectual space, striving to expand its academic discourse power and intellectual influence. Within major global IR academic organizations, the New English School has become increasingly prominent. From the annual meetings of the British International Studies Association (BISA) and the International Studies Association (ISA) to the triennial Pan-European International Relations Conferences and the Global International Studies Conferences, the New English School maintains discussion panels in every major IR forum, remaining active at the forefront of academic development and knowledge production.
IV. The Social Practice of the English School
As producers, disseminators, and reflectors of IR knowledge, the English School has engaged in diverse forms of social practice. This includes the aforementioned interactions with funding projects and academic organizations, and is also vividly reflected in the English School's cross-disciplinary exchanges. In the cross-disciplinary exchanges and academic dialogues conducted to date, the most striking was the "Second Great Debate" between the classical English School and American IR academia during the 1950s and 1960s.
1. Divergences Between the Two Sides
As a major manifestation of social practice, several members of the English School participated in the Second Great Debate of the IR field. This academic contention directly reflected the ideological differences between the British and American IR communities. In 1966, Bull published "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach," taking the lead in questioning the "scientific approach" of mainstream American IR theory. In the same year, Morton A. Kaplan, a professor at the University of Chicago, responded with "The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations." This formally established the "Bull-Kaplan Debate," triggering an academic controversy that spanned a decade (1955–1965).
During this decade, "Traditionalism" led by Bull and "Scientism" represented by Kaplan debated the methodology of IR research multiple times. Bull, defending the classical research method, firmly believed that the truth of international politics is not based on a single ideological paradigm but emerges from the contention between various paradigms. The two sides did not argue over the content of international politics; the central issue of the debate was the mode of analysis rather than the subject of research, eventually triggering a methodological revolution in the IR field. Their primary differences included two points. First, regarding the primary research orientation, scientific behavioralism embraced the trend of quantification in IR, tending toward parametric model analysis and variable causal demonstration of international activities. Traditionalism, represented by Bull, employed historical, philosophical, and legal methods, focusing more on qualitative changes in international relations and tending to view international activities as complex historical processes. Second, concerning specific research methods, scientific behavioralism advocated for the collection, organization, screening, and induction of controlled variables and analytical data, eventually incorporating them into analytical models for investigation. Traditionalism, conversely, focused more on exploring the causes, processes, results, and interrelationships of international activities based on diachronic sequences, emphasizing historical classification and comparative methods.
Upholding the classical humanist tradition, the British Committee believed it necessary to resist the wave of scientism sweeping through American IR. Consequently, they launched a three-pronged critique against scientific behavioralism: first, that the quantitative and model-based research of behavioralism struggled to grasp the essence of international relations due to its entanglement in data analysis and variable control; second, that by forcing international activities into numerous analytical models, behavioralism was unable to sublimate these into theories of absolute depth and abstract significance; and third, that the overemphasis on quantitative methods made it difficult to touch the fundamental nature of international relations.
2. Causes and Consequences of the Debate
Steve Smith argues that several factors contributed to the formation of the Second Great Debate: first, the different cultural backgrounds and historical developments of the UK and the US; second, the different domestic and international political and economic problems faced by the two countries; third, different ways of training scholars; fourth, different organizational structures and operational models of their respective academic communities; fifth, different levels of connection between the political and academic worlds (which is undoubtedly closer in the US); and sixth, the different environments for accessing information (the US has the Freedom of Information Act, while the UK did not). In fact, differences in cognitive preferences and clear theoretical divides existed from the very birth of British and American IR. John M. Hobson and George Lawson colorfully termed this the "transatlantic divide," which separated British IR, rooted in history, from mainstream American IR, which was less historically oriented.
In terms of research orientation, the theoretical bent of mainstream American IR after World War II was rationalism, while European IR (including Britain) as a whole increasingly trended toward social constructivism and postmodernism. Regarding ontology, the US emphasizes the material while Britain emphasizes ideas; from an epistemological perspective, the US emphasizes scientific realism while Britain emphasizes rational speculation; in terms of methodology, the US emphasizes scientific research methods while Britain emphasizes historical philosophy and methodological pluralism. Specifically: (1) Britain emphasizes traditional analysis, the US emphasizes comparative analysis; (2) Britain emphasizes normative methods, the US emphasizes empirical methods; (3) Britain focuses on historical analysis, the US on scientific analysis; (4) Britain values particularity in international relations, the US values universality and general laws; (5) Britain accepts that instinct, intuition, and imagination outweigh premises, inferences, and hypotheses, while the US emphasizes that logical presets, causal inference, and scientific models outweigh subjective intuition and imagination; (6) Britain focuses on behavioral motivation, while the US pays little attention to it; (7) Britain places more importance on the role of individuals, great figures, and elite groups; (8) Britain does not deliberately emphasize the impact of social science methodology on IR, while the US regards it as vital; (9) The relationship between government decision-making departments and academic institutions is less close in Britain than in the US; (10) British academia views IR and foreign policy as an art, while American academia views them as a science.
Therefore, unlike the American IR community’s tendency toward scientization, positivization, and quantification, IR in Britain has never been viewed simply as a subfield of political science, but rather as a comprehensive field requiring the integration of multi-disciplinary knowledge. The American-style scientific research path never gained a large following in Britain, allowing IR to maintain long-standing close ties with political science, history, international law, and sociology. In Bull's view, the sources of the classical British IR method are history, philosophy, and law; its primary characteristic is an explicit reliance on human judgment, with its general propositions derived from processes of perception or intuition.
After the Bull-Kaplan debate, the question of IR methodology remained controversial. In summarizing the characteristics of the English School, Dunne particularly emphasized the methodological differences between the British and American sides. He pointed out three main characteristics: first, a unique tradition of studying international politics based on a historical-societal perspective, especially emphasizing the legal and diplomatic experience of European international society; second, the general adoption of interpretive methods rather than the positivist methods of mainstream American theory; and third, viewing international political theory as normative theory, with a particular focus on the key role of ethics within it. In Buzan's view, scientific methods emphasize the trans-historical character, value neutrality, and empirical nature of theory, whereas the English School emphasizes theory's speculative and historical nature and its corresponding ethical values. Daniel Green also argues that a major advantage of the English School is its broad and profound understanding of the history of international relations, which clearly distinguishes it from other IR research methods. Martha Finnemore, however, has severely criticized the English School for lacking clear theory and research methods, making it unable to propose explicit causal hypotheses for international relations. Today, although academic debates regarding IR methodology still occur occasionally, they have generally entered a period of calm. While the English School and American IR academia do not fully agree on each other's methodologies, they acknowledge the value of each other's existence.
The social practice of the English School’s participation in the Second Great Debate reflects the massive methodological differences between Britain and the US. This transatlantic intellectual clash and social interaction placed both sides within the same intellectual space to explore specific issues, thereby effectively linking the English School with American IR academia and triggering a methodological revolution in the field.
V. The Expansion and Turning of the International Society Topic
The English School possesses an internally coherent intellectual tradition and has formed a unique theoretical system, the core and most well-known part of which is the topic of "international society." Using international society as its core, the English School has constructed a narrative framework for understanding and interpreting world history and international relations. This narrative framework consists of two main components: research on the expansion of international society and research on the turning [8] of international society.
1. Research on the Expansion of International Society
Research on the expansion of international society primarily refers to the subject of European international society itself. The English School proposed three major concepts—international system, international society, and world society—but the core concept remains international society. Andrew Linklater regards the concept of international society as the primary analytical objective of the English School. Departing from this core concept, the classical English School gradually developed a narrative of the expansion of European international society. Its core content comprises three points: first, that an anarchical international society first emerged and was consolidated in Europe, following institutions such as sovereignty, the balance of power, war, international law, diplomacy, and great power management within the Westphalian system; second, that European states established the dominant position of European international society worldwide through the creation of various colonies; and third, that the wave of decolonization after World War II prompted the vast majority of Third World countries to gradually become members of international society.
The four landmark representative works of the classical English School that interpret European international society are The Anarchical Society, The Expansion of International Society, The "Standard of Civilization" in International Society, and The Evolution of International Society. In terms of direction, Bull's The Anarchical Society first opened the intellectual agenda, while the subsequent three works deepened and reflected upon the topics Bull set forth. Regarding content interpretation and ideological expression, The "Standard of Civilization" in International Society and The Evolution of International Society are more profound, meticulous, and coherent. Gerrit W. Gong [9] was the first to notice the cultural norms and the "standard of civilization" implied behind European international society, conducting an in-depth exploration of the essence and operation of this "standard." Gong's primary contribution lay in examining the "standard of civilization" in conjunction with the expansion of European international society for the first time. To a certain extent, he criticized the strong and unreflective Eurocentrism of figures like Martin Wight, though due to insufficient critical intensity, his writing still carries Eurocentric overtones. Adam Watson's The Evolution of International Society absorbed the reflections on state systems and international order from The Anarchical Society and drew upon the historical narrative of the expansion of European international society from The Expansion of International Society. By combining these with a comparative analysis of numerous international systems, he proposed the controversial "pendulum" theoretical model. He incorporated empire as a type of political entity into the classical English School's frame of reference, thereby deepening the understanding of the two concepts of international system and international society, and providing a dynamic explanation of the evolution of international society. Simultaneously, he examined the relationship between decolonization after 1945 and European international society.
The classical English School expounded on the emergence and expansion of European international society from a historical dimension, laying the argumentative foundation for this narrative; however, its defect lies in a conspicuous lack of reflexivity. Criticisms of the classical international society narrative primarily fall into three categories. The first type of criticism argues that although the classical narrative takes non-Western states into account, it fails to notice that the latter were often acting passively or responding under duress. This reduces the agency of non-Western states to a minimum, thereby overlooking the important role of non-Western actors in shaping global history. The second type of criticism comes mainly from Jens Bartelson. He points out that the English School's concept of society possesses a unique semantic connotation, reflecting a series of intellectual inquiries undertaken by Europe when facing issues of political legitimacy and scientific justification. However, it is doubtful whether this concept remains applicable to the study of international politics once detached from its specific context. The third type of criticism explicitly states that the classical international society narrative fails to reflect on its complex relationship with colonialism: on one hand, the English School failed to fully confront and discuss Europe's colonial history, obscuring the violent conflicts, genocides, and economic plunder involved; on the other hand, the English School finds it difficult to explain the international situation after 1945, particularly the decolonization movements across Asia, Africa, and Latin America during the 1950s and 60s.
Overall, the narrative of the expansion of international society has completed its conceptual identification, theoretical interpretation, and factual construction through the discussions of multiple English School members. This narrative focuses intensely on the construction and operation of international society, mainly interpreting issues such as the concept, origin, diffusion, maintenance, resistance, and comparison of international society. It tends to use the history of international society as a means of understanding the past and reconstructing the current international society. Its narrative mode is singular and develops linearly; its "meta-theoretical assumptions are built upon the political, social, and scientific experiences of (early) European modernity." It carries out historical exposition and interpretation from a European perspective and by European standards, for the purpose of serving European states and the European order.
02. The Turn in International Society Research
The classical English School did not show a strong interest in regional international societies. However, as the New English School's reflexive consciousness has continuously strengthened, it has developed a profound interest in investigating the historical evolution and social structures of regional international societies. Consequently, research on the expansion of international society has undergone a turn. Robert Jackson argues that the English School should focus on the regional differences of contemporary international society. Barry Buzan also noted that as the revolution of modernity expands from the narrow core areas of the West to the globe, comparative narratives characterized by multiple modernities and regional international societies will once again become important. In 2005, the English School's "regional agenda" was formally launched. The New English School has conducted a series of analyses surrounding regional international societies, with a geographical scope encompassing Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Among these, East Asian international society is the most eye-catching. Currently, East Asian international society has become a research hotspot, with most studies revolving around three major topics: the integration of China and Japan into international society, China's peaceful rise, and the Chinese School.
First, the integration of China and Japan into international society is not a new topic but is a field of research initiated by scholars such as Wight and Bull and continued to this day. However, with the English School's research turn, this topic exhibits two new trends: first, exploring the relationship between East Asian society and Western society in the early modern period (before the rise of Europe and its dominance over the global pattern); and second, focusing on the complex process of China and Japan's integration into Western international society.
Regarding the relationship between early modern East Asian society and Western society, Zhang Yongjin and Shogo Suzuki have contributed significantly. Zhang Yongjin argues that ancient China gradually developed a unique international system that remained subject to its own established rules, norms, discourses, and institutions until the second half of the 19th century. The tributary system [10], as an important institutional manifestation of this international system, was "rooted in complex social relations between the participant and founder states, and possessed a special set of institutions that helped define norms of acceptable and legitimate state behavior." During the Ming and Qing transitions, the "participation of European state and non-state actors in the political, economic, social, and cultural order of the Chinese Empire depended on the extent to which Europeans adapted to, followed, or accepted the norms, values, and mechanisms within the Chinese world order." Shogo Suzuki is committed to unearthing the historical details and theoretical reflections of early modern Sino-European interactions. He points out that Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate attempted to establish a small-scale alternative tributary system centered on itself; to achieve this, "for Japan's feudal rulers, Europeans could become useful tools to demonstrate their widespread prestige as righteous rulers and consolidate the legitimacy of their rule."
In terms of China and Japan's integration into Western international society, Zhang Yongjin and Shogo Suzuki emphasize the process and results of this integration. First, Zhang Yongjin explores the journey of China's integration into international society, paying particular attention to the changes in the tributary system during this process, the socialization process of China during the Republican period, and the socialization process after the founding of New China in 1949. Shogo Suzuki focuses on comparing the socialization processes between China and Japan. He believes that China and Japan exhibit characteristics that are both similar and vastly different. China existed in a blurred state between "adaptation" and "strategic learning," while Japan manifested more proactive "imitative learning." Second, Suzuki argues that whether China and Japan accepted European international society depended on the extent to which both countries identified with its "standard of civilization." China "was not interested in identifying with European international society or seeking membership," and believed it unnecessary to cater to the international norms of European international society. Japan, conversely, explicitly emulated the West, attempting to transform from a participant in East Asian international society into a "civilized" member of European international society, and continuously imposed the duality of international society onto other East Asian countries. Overall, the topic of China and Japan's integration into international society questions the one-sidedness of the international society expansion narrative, striving to "deconstruct the view held by Bull and Watson that the globalization process of international society was rational or even orderly."
Second, the issue of China's peaceful rise is another important agenda in contemporary English School East Asian studies. Relevant discussions can be divided into two categories: one focuses primarily on the fundamental issues of China's rise, while the other concentrates on the issue of global power transition.
Regarding the series of fundamental issues of China's peaceful rise, the English School is mainly divided into a historical inclination represented by Buzan and others, and a constructivist inclination represented by Ian Clark and others. Buzan focuses on the history, reality, and future of China's rise. He believes that China is rising peacefully, but must still properly handle its relations with the United States, Japan, and international society. These three relationships affect the prospects of China's peaceful rise to varying degrees, constituting both potential challenges and historical opportunities for China's continued development. Clark, Timothy Dunne, and others pay more attention to the three elements of power, legitimacy, and responsibility. Clark argues for the need to construct an integrated framework where power, legitimacy, and responsibility are interrelated. Dunne believes that China's rise will not challenge the current international system; instead, it stabilizes and maintains the international order. China has gradually participated in dialogues concerning international responsibility and can be regarded as a reliable partner.
Regarding the issue of global power transition, Buzan and Amitav Acharya are more concerned with power transition and the prospects of world order, while Clark and Zhang Yongjin pay more attention to the mutual shaping of international norms and international order. Buzan and others point out that it is too early to discuss the end of Western hegemony, as rising non-Western countries have not yet developed into a highly cohesive and influential collective within international society. Clark argues that China's rise occurred within the existing framework, norms, and order; therefore, China cannot be viewed as a challenger to American hegemony. Similar to Clark's normative argument, Zhang Yongjin also believes that China's rise has, to a large extent, strengthened the liberal global order.
Unlike the zero-sum game logic of American academia, the English School's discussions on contemporary China's peaceful rise represent a moderate, eclectic, and more realistic analysis. Rooted in a historical view of social structure, the English School offers better insight into the relationship between China and international society and observes the relationships between different levels, such as global and regional, more clearly.
Third, the topics regarding the "Chinese School" [11] of international relations are not intellectual agendas pre-set by the English School. Rather, they are extended issues arising alongside China's peaceful rise and are a partial response to the question of "Why is there no non-Western international theory?" Relevant discussions revolve around four aspects: feasibility, paths of construction, international exchange, and the knowledge structure of International Relations as a discipline.
First, regarding the feasibility of establishing a "Chinese school." Within the Chinese domestic academic community, there has been ongoing debate over whether to establish a Chinese school, whereas the English School contends that it is indeed necessary for China to establish a Chinese school on a local basis. Amitav Acharya explicitly pointed out in 2015 that a Chinese school is particularly important for developing a world-historical narrative of International Relations (IR), as it proves the necessity of constructing a Global IR. Yongjin Zhang and Peter Marcus Kristensen argue that the Chinese school can be viewed as a broad intellectual dialogue or an "ideological coalition" rooted in a shared belief in its creation and a strong interest in its construction. Second, regarding the intellectual resources for constructing a Chinese school: the English School suggests that Chinese scholars return to history, focusing specifically on three periods—the Pre-Qin era, the imperial dynasties, and the post-1949 period following the founding of the New China. They believe the "Hundred Schools of Thought" [12] from the Pre-Qin period can provide a continuous stream of cultural resources for a Chinese school; the international practices of the "contending hegemons" [13] and the coexistence of multiple states offer analytical cases for a system of anarchic states and hegemonic systems. The imperial period covers historical cases such as the tributary system, "peace through marriage" [14] alliances, and imperial management. Furthermore, the diplomatic thought and practices of Chinese leaders after 1949 serve as direct intellectual sources for Chinese scholars to construct a Chinese school. Third, regarding international exchanges surrounding the various theoretical innovations of the Chinese school: focusing on its knowledge production, the English School has paid attention to tianxia-ism (all-under-heaven), relational theory, moral realism, and symbiosis theory. They argue that these theories indicate the emergence of a self-reflective Chinese IR epistemic community. At the same time, however, the construction of knowledge concerning China remains in its initial stages. Finally, the reflections on the intellectual structure of IR that extend from the Chinese school: Kristensen argues that IR constitutes an asymmetric center-periphery hierarchical structure. American IR occupies the center, European IR is in a semi-peripheral position, while the Chinese school and IR theories of other emerging powers are at the outermost periphery. The Chinese school is a specific theory rooted in Chinese geography and culture, which can propagate within the global intellectual structure of IR and carve out a unique epistemic space. Yongjin Zhang also argues that within the global intellectual structure of IR, the label of a "school" serves as a tool for the American center to suppress non-Western countries on the periphery. The center acknowledges the existence of peripheral theories but denies their potential to develop into universal theories by defining them as localized geographic schools. As another research hotspot following the English School’s regional turn in its international society narrative, the Chinese school agenda has yielded significant research results. This intellectual topic is inseparable from the process of constructing the Chinese school within China itself; it places the Chinese IR community and the English School within the same epistemic space, effectively linking the two.
From the perspective of knowledge production, the many intellectual issues following the turn toward international society both constitute distinct problematics and are interconnected. To date, the English School has maintained a commitment to normative research; even when exploring the highly practical intellectual issue of China's peaceful rise, it does not employ complex data integration and statistical models for demonstration in the manner of positivism. Whether it is the expansion narrative of European international society or the research on regional international societies after the "turn," both fall within the research scope of international society issues, exhibiting a highly visible intergenerational transmission of knowledge. Based on the critique and reflection of the expansion narrative of European international society, the English School turned toward regional international societies; in turn, research on regional international societies has continuously prompted the English School to re-examine potential cognitive biases and intellectual pitfalls in its previous work. Examined from the perspective of social connectivity, regional international society research has, on one hand, brought the regional dimension—previously neglected by the classic English School—back into the research field, helping to strengthen social ties and academic bonds between different regional studies. On the other hand, frequent academic discussions and intellectual exchanges among scholars from different regions on the topic of regional international society have promoted the openness and inclusiveness of the English School.
VI. Conclusion
The evolution and development of the English School is both an intellectual and a social phenomenon. It is not only an intellectual reflection of social facts but also a social construction completed by scholars through academic practice. The development of the English School is influenced by several social factors: first, its internal discussions; second, its interactions with other intellectual groups; and third, the relationship of intersection and symbiosis between its intellectual and social natures. Intellectual and social characteristics do not preclude interdisciplinary exchange; in fact, cognitive rationality permits and requires the incorporation of external evidence and the initiation of broad discussions. As producers, disseminators, and reflectors of knowledge, the English School continuously highlights its role as an intellectual subject through theoretical meaning-making and constructs an open and extensive academic network through the dissemination of knowledge. In this sense, the intellectual and social character of the English School will continue to manifest itself.