James Mortensen

Germans, Greeks, and Genealogies

Introduction

Germans, greeks, and genealogies. Critiques the assumed genealogy of 'security' in International Relations theory, from Thucydides to Hobbes. Offers an alternative origin from English Civil War pamphlets, resolving classical vs. modern views.

Abstract

This paper considers the genealogical inheritance of the term ‘security’ within the context of International Relations theory (IR), and uses historical and classical textual analysis to critique the validity of that assumed genealogy. Much existing IR literature operates under the assumption that ‘security’ as a politically relevant term is either timeless (a ‘classical’ view), or a result of US policy in the 1940s (a ‘modern’ view); obviously these positions are contradictory, at least on the surface. The paper attempts to resolve this contradiction through the use of an interdisciplinary approach. It first does this by using textual analysis, political science and history to critique the historical and political genealogies influential in said disciplines on their own terms; of central issue is the assumption of continuity in the language of Thucydides and Hobbes. Secondly, the paper offers an alternative genealogy that better informs both the ‘classical’ and ‘modern’ claims, one that draws from the political pamphlets of the English Civil War. Lastly, the paper uses historical analysis of continental political mores in the early 20th century to demonstrate the value of this new genealogy to the IR discipline. Keywords: International Security, Genealogy of Security, Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes, International Relations Theory

Review

This paper presents a timely and important intervention into a foundational debate within International Relations (IR) theory: the intellectual genealogy of the term ‘security’. By pinpointing the tension between views that cast 'security' as a timeless, classical concept and those that locate its genesis in mid-20th-century US policy, the author identifies a critical contradiction that warrants thorough investigation. The stated aim to resolve this apparent inconsistency through a rigorous re-examination of historical and textual assumptions is highly commendable, promising to offer a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of a core analytical concept that underpins much of the IR discipline. The proposed interdisciplinary methodology, integrating textual analysis, political science, and history, is a significant strength. The paper effectively outlines its two-pronged approach: first, a critique of the often-assumed continuity between the language of Thucydides and Hobbes, a lineage that frequently goes unchallenged in IR scholarship. This critical deconstruction paves the way for the second, equally important, contribution: the introduction of an alternative genealogy for 'security' derived from the political pamphlets of the English Civil War. This novel theoretical move promises to offer a fresh perspective that could indeed bridge the conceptual gap between 'classical' and 'modern' understandings. The final step, demonstrating the value of this new genealogy through historical analysis of early 20th-century continental political mores, is crucial for establishing its practical relevance to contemporary IR. Overall, this paper is poised to be a significant contribution to the intellectual history of International Relations, with particular relevance for critical security studies and foundational IR theory. Its willingness to challenge established intellectual lineages and introduce an empirically grounded alternative genealogy is a major merit. The ambition to inform *both* classical and modern claims with this new framework is a compelling proposition, and the success of the argument will depend on the clarity and persuasiveness of this demonstration. While the abstract effectively outlines the paper's scope and argument, the specific connection of the "Germans" from the title to the "continental political mores" of the early 20th century could potentially benefit from a slightly more explicit link, though it is implied. This research has the potential to substantially reshape how scholars understand the historical and conceptual underpinnings of 'security' in international politics.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.