The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths that Your Teachers Still Tell You about

1648 and 1919

Introduction

This article discusses the historical myths surrounding the discipline of

International Relations (IR). It challenges the widely accepted beliefs about the
origins of IR, particularly the significance of the years 1648 and 1919. The myth
of 1648 suggests that it marked the birth of the modern sovereign state and the
anarchic states-system, while the myth of 1919 presents it as the year when the
discipline itself emerged.
The article argues that these myths have distorted views of state formation, the
nature of the international system, and the discipline's historical development. It
criticizes the mainstream of IR for failing to engage with revisionist
perspectives that question these myths. The article emphasizes the
detrimental effects of perpetuating these myths, including a rigid focus on the
nation-state and a Eurocentric worldview.
Furthermore, the article highlights the importance of textbooks in shaping the
understanding of IR. It criticizes the lack of incorporation of historical and
historiographical insights in many textbooks and emphasizes the need for a
dialogue between mainstream and revisionist scholars.
The authors acknowledge the challenges in selecting textbooks for analysis,
considering factors like availability, popularity, and author recognition. They
note the undervaluation of textbooks in academia compared to journal articles
and monographs. The article concludes by calling for a re-evaluation of these
historical myths and their impact on the discipline of IR.
An Ontological Big Bang: The Myth of 1648

The traditional view in International Relations (IR) holds that the ontology of IR
begins with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. According to this view, the
emergence of the sovereign state, the anarchic states-system, and the end of the
suzerain/heteronomous order of the Respublica Christiana can be traced back to
this historical event. However, recent historical and historiographical revisions
have challenged this conventional narrative, relegating it to the status of a myth.
Prominent scholars such as Benno Teschke, Stephen Krasner, and Andreas
Osiander have contributed to these revisionist accounts, arguing that the modern
state and the anarchic states-system did not originate in 1648. They suggest that
the Treaties of Westphalia, in fact, served as a constitutional document for the
Holy Roman Empire (HRE) rather than establishing sovereignty as traditionally
believed. Despite these revisionist perspectives gaining prominence in
influential IR journals and publications, the Westphalian axiom remains deeply
entrenched in the field.
Many well-known figures in IR, such as Hans Morgenthau, Leo Gross, Adam
Watson, and David Held, have referenced the Treaty of Westphalia as a
pivotal moment that solidified the territorial state and established the
principle of territorial sovereignty among states. These references have been
prevalent throughout the IR canon, contributing to the continued perpetuation of
the Westphalian myth.
In summary, while recent revisions challenge the Westphalian narrative as the
starting point of IR's ontology, the traditional view remains deeply ingrained in
the field and is still widely referenced.

‘Westphalia and All That’: Debunking the Myth of 1648

The texts of the treaties signed in Münster (IPM) and Osnabrück (IPO) in 1648
present a different perspective from the conventional narrative surrounding the
Treaty of Westphalia. Rather than marking the establishment of sovereignty, the
Westphalian settlement can be seen as a regression to a feudal and medieval
heteronomous order that already existed. The treaties did not mention
sovereignty or the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, which had been
established earlier in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555.
The Peace of Westphalia actually limited the right of rulers within the Holy
Roman Empire (HRE) to decide on religious matters, reverting to the status quo
ante of 1624. Therefore, the Peace of Augsburg, concluded almost a century
earlier, was more consistent with modern notions of sovereignty in terms of
religion. It's important to note that the principle of cuius regio, eius religio was
applicable only to the internal affairs of the HRE, not Europe as a whole.
The claim that the Peace of Westphalia defeated the Holy Roman Emperor's
universal aspirations is also challenged by revisionist accounts of the Thirty
Years' War. The war was not solely about containing the Habsburgs'
universalistic ambitions but involved various actors taking advantage of the
weakened position of the Habsburg Empire. The fear of Habsburg collapse and
its consequences motivated interventions by Denmark, Sweden, and France.
Overall, the treaties of Westphalia do not present a straightforward story of
transformation but rather a complex mix of feudal suzerainty and elements of
modern state sovereignty. The feudal character of Westphalia is highlighted by
the fact that France and Sweden were awarded fiefdoms over territories
formerly under imperial jurisdiction, with the Swedish monarch becoming a
vassal of the emperor.
The focus on the Holy Roman Empire reveals the presence of hierarchies both
within and outside of Europe. While hierarchy continued within Europe,
hierarchical systems also emerged in non-European civilizations, forming
relationships between different civilizations. The belief that sovereignty became
universally accepted in world politics after the Peace of Westphalia overlooks
the existence of hierarchical international political structures. Colonial powers
had control over non-sovereign territories, challenging the idea of universal
sovereignty. The concept of the sovereign state as the typical political unit only
became widespread during the postcolonial era.
In summary, sovereignty and the anarchic international system did not originate
at Westphalia. The emergence of sovereignty and the states-system were the
result of a long process rather than a sudden break from the feudal system.
Scrutinizing the treaties and considering revisionist scholarship challenges the
Westphalian narrative, urging caution in accepting long-held textbook tales.
Despite the weight of arguments against the conventional view, it is expected
that scepticism or rejection of the Westphalian myth should have influenced
more recent texts and textbooks.
What Our Teachers Still Teach Us about Westphalia
The passage you provided discusses the tension and discrepancies between
revisionist scholarship on the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the conventional
narrative presented in many textbooks of international relations (IR). While
some textbooks have incorporated elements of revisionist analysis, the majority
still emphasize the traditional myth of 1648 as a pivotal moment in the
emergence of the modern state system and sovereignty.
The revisionist perspective challenges the idea that the Peace of Westphalia
marked a clear break with the feudal order and the establishment of
modern state sovereignty. It argues that the concept of sovereignty was not
fully codified in the treaties, and certain aspects of sovereignty, such as the right
to choose one's own religion, were actually limited compared to earlier
agreements like the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. Furthermore, the revisionist
view highlights the complex and gradual process of state formation that
took place over centuries, rather than a sudden transformation at
Westphalia.
Despite these revisionist arguments, many textbooks continue to present the
Peace of Westphalia as a watershed moment that gave birth to the modern
international system based on sovereign states. This perpetuates a mythical
narrative that oversimplifies the historical development of state sovereignty and
neglects alternative perspectives. The passage also points out that this
conventional narrative is often Eurocentric, disregarding the influences of non-
European civilizations on the concept of sovereignty.
In conclusion, while some textbooks have acknowledged revisionist analyses of
the Peace of Westphalia, the majority still uphold the traditional myth of 1648 as
a defining moment in the emergence of state sovereignty and the modern state
system. This adherence to the conventional narrative overlooks the complexity
of historical developments and the diverse influences on the concept of
sovereignty.
An Epistemological Big Bang: The Myth of 1919
The passage discusses the myth of 1919 in the context of the discipline of
international relations (IR). This myth consists of three interconnected elements.
Firstly, it claims that the discipline of IR was born in 1919. Secondly, it suggests
that the discipline emerged as an idealist attempt to address the problem of war,
particularly in the aftermath of World War I. Lastly, it posits that interwar
idealism was overshadowed by realism in a First Great Debate due to its failure
to prevent or explain the increasing interstate violence of the 1930s and the
onset of World War II.
The myth of 1919 is a more recent construct compared to the myth of 1648. The
historical consciousness within the discipline of IR was relatively limited until
the publication of The Aberystwyth Papers in 1972. The foundational myth of
IR, as it was traditionally presented, focused primarily on the post-World War II
generation of classical realists, with little attention given to earlier historical
developments. However, around 1970, historiographical interest grew, partly
due to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the first IR chair at
Aberystwyth, methodological differences of the 1960s (later known as the
Second Great Debate), and the influence of scientific paradigms, inspired by
Thomas Kuhn.
This emerging historiography extended the history of the discipline back to
1919 and emphasized the supposed triumph of classical realism over the earlier
generation of "misguided" idealists. This perspective served to reaffirm the
dominance of realism within IR, presenting it as the victorious approach that
embraced positivism and scientific methodology to explain international
relations.
However, from the early 1980s, the discipline faced increasing criticism from
alternative theories, particularly with the onset of the Third Great Debate
(sometimes referred to as the Fourth Great Debate). This debate normalized
dissent within the discipline and presented ongoing disagreements as a regular
part of intellectual progress. The myth of 1919 and the First Great Debate were
further solidified as attempts to establish and assert various claims of status
within the discipline, particularly in response to the challenges posed by
alternative theories.
In summary, the myth of 1919 in IR revolves around the birth of the discipline
in 1919, its idealist origins in response to the aftermath of World War I, and the
subsequent overshadowing of idealism by realism in a First Great Debate.
While this myth has gained prominence in the discipline, it has also faced
criticism and challenges from alternative perspectives.
‘1919 and All That’: Debunking the Originary /Foundationist Myth of the
Discipline
The passage you provided discusses the challenges and criticisms faced by E.H.
Carr and the prevailing narrative of the "myth of 1919" in international
relations. It highlights the re-evaluation of Carr's realism and the questioning of
whether he can be classified as a realist at all. Different perspectives, such as
internalist, externalist, and contextualist viewpoints, emphasize the political and
dialectical nature of Carr's work and its indebtedness to a sociological approach
influenced by Karl Mannheim. Furthermore, the passage argues that many
interwar writers labelled as "idealists" were actually more aligned with certain
realist principles, and they actively supported European imperialism, especially
British imperialism.
The passage also challenges the notion of a First Great Debate between the so-
called idealists and realists. While Carr's book sparked reactions, there was no
widespread debate, and the notion that the idealist position was defeated is
contested. Instead, the passage suggests that there were debates between
different approaches to politics in general, some of which contributed to post-
World War II realism. The framing of "realism-triumphant" against "idealism-
defeated" after World War II was more of a political move to establish a specific
foreign policy and distance international politics from behavioralist political
science.
Regarding the birth of the discipline of international relations (IR), the passage
challenges the conventional view that IR emerged in 1919. It points to earlier
antecedents in the late 19th century, particularly in debates on imperialism,
geopolitics, and trade. Scholars like Brian Schmidt, Robert Vitalis, and Torbjorn
Knutsen argue for different dates of institutionalization of IR, ranging from
1880 to 1910. Vitalis, in particular, asserts that the discipline's rationale was
based on a racist "white supremacist" outlook.
The passage suggests that the myth of the discipline's birth in 1919 perpetuates
a noble image of IR, but it obscures the fact that international theory throughout
its history has served to defend and promote Western civilization. It argues that
the prevailing narratives of the discipline have always been rooted in
Eurocentric and racist metanarratives. It also discusses how interwar scholarship
emerged in the context of the colonial racial revolt against Western imperialism
and reflects a sense of anxiety within the Western imagination as the West's
imperial hegemony seemed to be cracking. Many interwar scholars, both pro-
imperialist and anti-imperialist, held Eurocentric or racist perspectives, either
advocating for imperial hierarchy or defending the West due to these
metanarratives.
In summary, the passage challenges the traditional understanding of E.H. Carr's
realism, the existence of a First Great Debate, and the birth date of the discipline
of IR in 1919. It also highlights the prevalence of Eurocentrism and racism
within the discipline and its impact on interwar scholarship.
What our Teachers Still Tell Us about 1919
The passage you provided discusses the historiography of International
Relations (IR) textbooks and the changing terminology used to describe theories
in the field. It highlights a shift from using the term "idealist" to "liberal" to
describe the theories of the interwar years. The author argues that this shift is
related to attempts to solidify present-day liberalism as a viable competitor to
realism.
The author criticizes current textbooks for perpetuating certain myths and
narratives about the emergence of the discipline and the dominance of realism
after World War II. They argue that these narratives are outdated and not in line
with the revisionist historiography of the last two decades. The author points out
that the persistence of the term "idealism" in textbooks, even with some
modifications, overlooks the complexities and pluralism of interwar theorizing.
The passage also mentions the concept of the "First Great Debate," which is
often discussed in IR textbooks. The author argues that this debate, between
utopian liberalism and realism, has been portrayed as won by the realists,
despite arguments from revisionist scholars that the debate never actually took
place. The author suggests that a more reflexive approach is needed,
acknowledging the grand narratives while deconstructing them and
incorporating insights from revisionist historiography.
Overall, the passage criticizes the limited impact of revisionist historiography
on IR textbooks and argues for a more nuanced and historically informed
approach to teaching the discipline's history.
Conclusion: Why Does the Discipline Continue to Hold These Myths to Be Self-evident Truths?

Based on the provided analysis, it seems that the field of International Relations
(IR) continues to operate on a false foundation and persistent myths despite
attempts to challenge them. Several reasons can be identified for why this false
prospectus persists:
1. Limited engagement with historical literature: While key revisionist articles
and books are cited in IR scholarship, their insights are not effectively
integrated into the discipline. The historical aspects of IR tend to be overlooked,
partly due to the overwhelming volume of specialized literature and the reliance
on standard textbook discussions.
2. Inherent presentism: Many IR scholars prioritize present concerns and treat
history as a mere tool to confirm present truths rather than engaging with it in
its own right. This narrow focus on the present limits a deeper understanding of
historical matters and hinders the integration of historical insights into the
discipline.
3. Normalization of established perspectives: The myths in IR, such as the
Westphalian myth and the myth of 1919, have functioned to discipline and
normalize thinking within the field. They provide convenient and simplified
narratives that define the boundaries of the discipline. Challenging these myths
would require reconceptualizing fundamental frameworks and unsettling
established boundaries, which is often met with resistance.
4. Eurocentric identity and imperialism: The Eurocentric narrative in IR
presents 1648 as the creation of the sovereign state in Europe, followed by the
expansion of Europe's institutions to the non-European world. This imperialist
imaginary perpetuates a Eurocentric identity within the discipline. Breaking
away from this narrative would fundamentally challenge the Eurocentric
foundations of IR, which many find confronting and are hesitant to confront.
5. Identity-based function of myths: The myths of 1648 and 1919 not only serve
as stories held to be true but also function as building blocks for thinking and
theorizing in IR. They have become deeply ingrained in the discipline's mindset,
making them difficult to dislodge and replace with alternative perspectives.
To dismantle the border controls that characterize the myths of 1648 and 1919
within the discipline, a strong commitment to dialogue is recommended. It is
important to challenge shorthand explanations and engage in constant vigilance
regarding references to these myths in textbooks, lectures, and discussions.
Encouraging dialogue, both within and outside the discipline, can help gain new
and richer understandings of international phenomena. Additionally, confronting
Eurocentrism and disbanding its influence within IR is essential to move
beyond the current limitations and create space for meaningful progress.
SUMMARY
The article challenges two historical myths in the discipline of International
Relations (IR): the myth of 1648 and the myth of 1919. The myth of 1648
suggests that it marked the birth of the modern sovereign state and the anarchic
states-system, while the myth of 1919 presents it as the year when the discipline
itself emerged.
The article argues that these myths distort the understanding of state formation,
the international system, and the historical development of IR. It criticizes the
mainstream of IR for failing to engage with revisionist perspectives that
question these myths. The article emphasizes the negative effects of
perpetuating these myths, including a narrow focus on the nation-state and a
Eurocentric worldview.
The article also highlights the importance of textbooks in shaping the
understanding of IR. It criticizes the lack of historical and historiographical
insights in many textbooks and calls for a dialogue between mainstream and
revisionist scholars.
The myth of 1648 is challenged by revisionist scholars who argue that the
modern state and the states-system did not originate in 1648. The Treaty of
Westphalia served as a constitutional document for the Holy Roman Empire
rather than establishing sovereignty as traditionally believed.
The myth of 1919 is questioned in terms of the birth of IR as a discipline and
the supposed triumph of realism over idealism in a First Great Debate.
Revisionist scholars argue that IR has earlier antecedents and that the notion of
a clear debate and victory of realism is misleading.
In conclusion, the article calls for a re-evaluation of these historical myths and
their impact on the discipline of IR. It suggests engaging with revisionist
perspectives, incorporating historical insights into textbooks, and adopting a
more nuanced and historically informed approach to teaching and researching
IR.
3. Normalization of established perspectives: The myths in IR, such as the
Westphalian myth and the myth of 1919, have functioned to discipline and
normalize thinking within the field. They provide convenient and simplified
narratives that can be easily taught and reproduced. Challenging these myths
requires significant effort and a willingness to confront deeply ingrained beliefs.
4. Resistance to change: The resistance to revising and updating textbooks and
curricula in IR contributes to the perpetuation of these myths. Textbooks often
serve as the primary source of information for students, and if they continue to
present outdated narratives, it hinders the progress of the discipline.
5. Institutional factors: The academic institutions themselves play a role in
perpetuating these myths. The selection of textbooks, hiring practices, and
promotion criteria can favor scholars who align with the dominant narratives,
making it difficult for alternative perspectives to gain recognition and influence.
Addressing these challenges requires a collective effort from scholars,
educators, and institutions within the field of IR. It is crucial to engage with
revisionist literature, incorporate historical and historiographical insights into
teaching materials, and promote a more inclusive and diverse understanding of
the discipline. By embracing a more critical and reflexive approach, the field of
IR can move beyond these myths and foster a deeper understanding of its
historical development and the complexities of international relations.
In conclusion, the persistence of the Westphalian myth and the myth of 1919 in
the discipline of IR can be attributed to limited engagement with historical
literature, inherent presentism, the normalization of established perspectives,
resistance to change, and institutional factors. Overcoming these challenges
requires a concerted effort to integrate revisionist insights, challenge prevailing
narratives, and promote a more inclusive and historically informed
understanding of international relations. By doing so, the discipline can evolve
and advance in its understanding of the complexities of global politics.