History, Theory and Methodological Pluralism in the English School

Abstract

General interest in the English School’s (ES) approach to international relations has increased steadily over the past two decades, along with the number of its adherents. These two trends have given rise to contradictory developments. On the one hand, the growing interest in the ES has meant that there are now recurrent attempts by non-ES theorists to locate the ES in the pantheon of IR theory. In the process, however, much of the complexity and variation of the theory is lost. In the interests of providing an unambiguous image of the ES that is clearly differentiated from other approaches to international relations, key elements of its multidimensional theoretical perspective are excised to reveal what is considered to be the main core of the theory. Almost invariably when this happens, the ES is associated with either a purely norm-driven or an institutional conception of international relations. On the other hand, internal differentiation within the school has developed as the ES has attracted a growing number of adherents. Indeed, Buzan argues that there are now at least three different ways of understanding ES theory.1 ES theory may be considered first as a set of ideas to be found in the minds of statesmen; second, as a set of ideas to be found in the minds of political theorists; and third, as a set of externally imposed concepts that define the material and social structures of the international system.2