Read on Twitter
When I teach Intro to International Relations, I use no ancient texts or ancient examples.
That's right. No Thucydides.
Why?
[THREAD]
That's right. No Thucydides.
Why?
[THREAD]
To be clear, I mean "no" ancient texts.
That means no Thucydides... https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War/EHbmA0c0JwsC?hl=en&gbpv=0
That means no Thucydides... https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War/EHbmA0c0JwsC?hl=en&gbpv=0
... or Herodotus... https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Persian_Wars/_WMcPQAACAAJ?hl=en
...or Kautilya. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_ARTHASHASTRA/3jbzZkoR36QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=kautilya+arthashastra&printsec=frontcover
I also don't draw on Machiavelli or other "classic" treatise of statecraft https://www.google.com/books/edition/Machiavelli_The_Prince/05R7kYOKD0cC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Is this because such books shouldn't be taught?
Of course not.
Indeed, departments should have a course on "Classic texts of statecraft" (or something like that).
Of course not.
Indeed, departments should have a course on "Classic texts of statecraft" (or something like that).
Instead, I don't teach these texts for three reasons:
1) I focus on the League of Nations as an idea.
2) I want to make clear Imperialism's centrality to early IR
3) I want to avoid anachronistic reading of the texts
1) I focus on the League of Nations as an idea.
2) I want to make clear Imperialism's centrality to early IR
3) I want to avoid anachronistic reading of the texts
(1) I view the discipline of IR as a 20th century discipline that emerged to ponder a 20th century question: can the *idea* of a "League of Nations" work?
This does entail drawing on 19th century writing and examples, especially to show how the League of Nations was viewed as the culmination of a process of gradual international organization stretching back to at least the Concert of Europe
But I don't go back much further than post-Napoleonic wars, not even to Westphalia in 1648. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/sovereignty-international-relations-and-the-westphalian-myth/33B6B7773432BE494F31518952ABE881
(2) I can say more about the key feature of the international system during the lead-up and immediate aftermath of World War I (and the creation of the LoN): Imperialism
Indeed, the idea that "one nation could govern the globe via empire" definitely fed into the idea that "a group of empires could govern the globe" https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Guardians/n41yCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
(3) Rather than these ancient texts conveying, say, the timeless applicability of Realism, is it possible that a Realist scholar is importing Realism onto these texts? https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/why-international-relations-theorists-should-stop-reading-thucydides/91125DF64E5228349583AB535A8289A4
Having said all of that, if you do want to bring in Thucydides, there are ways to do so.
@Szarejko describes a nice approach: https://twitter.com/Szarejko/status/1288267943340646402
@Szarejko describes a nice approach: https://twitter.com/Szarejko/status/1288267943340646402
Or you can bring in a broader set of historic examples, as @BeijingPalmer lays out in this thread (and his recent @ForeignPolicy piece) https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1288283276898074630
But I sense that for many students their experience with ancient texts like Thucydides be along the lines of @CarolineCBaxter. https://twitter.com/CarolineCBaxter/status/1288248760443838466
In the end, while I won't use Thucydides, other IR instructors will do what they wish...and students will endure what they must (h/t @EoSpangler)
[END]
[END]
