Textbook The Politics of International Political Theory Reflections On The Works of Chris Brown Mathias Albert Ebook All Chapter PDF

The Politics of International Political
Theory: Reflections on the Works of

Chris Brown Mathias Albert
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-politics-of-international-political-theory-reflections-
on-the-works-of-chris-brown-mathias-albert/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Organizing Democracy: Reflections on the Rise of

Political Organizations in the Nineteenth Century 1st
Edition Henk Te Velde
https://textbookfull.com/product/organizing-democracy-
reflections-on-the-rise-of-political-organizations-in-the-
nineteenth-century-1st-edition-henk-te-velde/
Envisioning The World Mapping And Making The Global

Sandra Holtgreve Karlson Preuß Mathias Albert
https://textbookfull.com/product/envisioning-the-world-mapping-
and-making-the-global-sandra-holtgreve-karlson-preus-mathias-
albert/
Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics Univalent

Foundations Set Theory and General Thoughts Stefania
Centrone
https://textbookfull.com/product/reflections-on-the-foundations-
of-mathematics-univalent-foundations-set-theory-and-general-
thoughts-stefania-centrone/
Political Encounters: A Hermeneutic Inquiry into the

Situation of Political Obligation Ruairidh J. Brown
https://textbookfull.com/product/political-encounters-a-
hermeneutic-inquiry-into-the-situation-of-political-obligation-
ruairidh-j-brown/
International Reflections on the Netherlands Didactics
of Mathematics : Visions on and Experiences with
Realistic Mathematics Education Marja Van Den Heuvel-
Panhuizen
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-reflections-on-
the-netherlands-didactics-of-mathematics-visions-on-and-
experiences-with-realistic-mathematics-education-marja-van-den-
heuvel-panhuizen/
Arguing Islam after the revival of Arab politics 1st

Edition Nathan J. Brown
https://textbookfull.com/product/arguing-islam-after-the-revival-
of-arab-politics-1st-edition-nathan-j-brown/
On the Politics of Ugliness Sara Rodrigues
https://textbookfull.com/product/on-the-politics-of-ugliness-
sara-rodrigues/
King and Outlaw The Real Robert the Bruce 2nd Edition
Dr Chris Brown
https://textbookfull.com/product/king-and-outlaw-the-real-robert-
the-bruce-2nd-edition-dr-chris-brown/
The Challenge of Politics An Introduction to Political

Science Neal Riemer
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-challenge-of-politics-an-
introduction-to-political-science-neal-riemer/
EDITED BY
MATHIAS ALBERT &
ANTHONY F. LANG JR.
THE POLITICS OF
INTERNATIONAL
POLITICAL THEORY
REFLECTIONS
ON THE
WORKS OF
CHRIS BROWN
The Politics of International Political Theory
Mathias Albert • Anthony F. Lang Jr.
Editors
The Politics of
International Political
Theory
Reflections on the Works of Chris Brown
Editors
Mathias Albert Anthony F. Lang Jr.
Bielefeld University University of St Andrews
Bielefeld, Germany St Andrews, UK
ISBN 978-3-319-93277-4 ISBN 978-3-319-93278-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93278-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952234
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover image © Music-Images / Alamy Stock Photo

Cover design: Ran Shauli
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Christof Royer for his invaluable assistance in the
editing process for this volume.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: The Politics of International Political

Theory 1
Anthony F. Lang Jr. and Mathias Albert
Part I Judgement, Reason, and Humanity 19
2 Dogmatic Anti-dogmatism: Learning from Chris Brown 21

Colin Wight
3 The Politics of Judgement in International Political

Theory 39
Kimberly Hutchings
4 Practical Judgement: Inconsistent—Or Incoherent? 55

Nicholas Rengger
5 Humanity in International Political Theory: Chris Brown

and the Principles, Politics and Practice
of Humanitarianism 69
Henry Radice
vii
viii Contents
Part II War and Violence, Human Rights and Global

Institutions 85
6 Between Sovereign Judgment and the International Rule

of Law: The Protection of People from Mass Atrocities 87
Lothar Brock
7 War and the ‘Brotherhood of Hooliganism’ 117

Ken Booth
8 Emotions and Political Limitations: Working Through

the Broken Middle with Chris Brown 141
Brent J. Steele
9 The Politics of Human Rights 159

David Owen
10 The Ethics of Brexit 181

Mervyn Frost
11 Cultural Incomprehension and the Tragic Sense of Life 199

David Boucher
12 Chris Brown’s Liberal Conservatism, the Process

of Moral Learning and Global Institutional
Transformations 219
Heikki Patomäki
Part III Coda 241
13 In Response 243
Chris Brown
14 Postscriptum: Chris Brown, and International Political

Theory Anywhere Else but in Bayreuth 257
Mathias Albert and Anthony F. Lang Jr.
Index 265
Notes on Contributors
Mathias Albert is Professor of Political Science at Bielefeld University.

His latest books include Ordnung und Regieren in der Weltgesellschaft (ed.
with Nicole Deitelhoff and Gunther Hellmann, 2018) and A Theory of
World Politics (2016).
Ken Booth is a professor in the Department of International Politics at
Aberystwyth University, and an editor of International Relations. He
is presently working on a book entitled International Relations: The Story
so Far.
David Boucher is Professor of Political Philosophy and International
Relations at Cardiff University, and distinguished visiting professor at the
University of Johannesburg. His recent books include The Limits of
Ethics in International Relations (2009); British Idealism: A Guide for the
Perplexed (2011); and Appropriating Hobbes: Legacies in Politics, Law
and International Relations (2018).
Lothar Brock is senior professor at Goethe University Frankfurt/Main
and associate researcher at Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. His latest
publications include ‘Cooperation in Conflict: Ubiquity, Limits, and
Potential of Working Together at the International Level’, in Global
Cooperation and the Human Factor in International Relations (ed. Dirk
Messner and Silke Weinlich, 2016) and Fragile States: Violence and the
Failure of Intervention (with Hans-Henrik Holm, Georg Sørensen and
Michael Stohl, 2012).
ix
x Notes on Contributors
Chris Brown is Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the

London School of Economics and Political Science. His most recent book
is International Society, Global Polity (2015) and—co-edited with Robyn
Eckersley—The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (2018).
Mervyn Frost is Professor of International Relations in the Department
of War Studies at King’s College, London, and is an associate professor in
the Department of Politics and International Relations at the
University of Johannesburg. His recent work, with Dr. Silviya
Lechner, includes ‘Two Conceptions of International Practice:
Aristotelian praxis or Wittgensteinian language-games?’ in Review of
International Studies 42/2 (2016), and Practice Theory and International
Relations (2018).
Kimberly Hutchings is Professor of Politics and International Relations
at Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of many books
and articles, including International Political Theory (1999), Time and
World Politics (2008) and Global Ethics: An Introduction (2010, 2nd edi-
tion 2018).
Anthony F. Lang Jr. is Professor of International Political Theory in the
School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. He has
published widely on issues at the intersection of ethics, law and politics at
the global level. His most recent book is International Political Theory:
An Introduction (2014). He is currently working on themes related to
global constitutionalism.
David Owen is Professor of Social and Political Philosophy at the
University of Southampton. His most recent books include the co-
authored Prospects of Citizenship (2011) and the edited volume Michel
Foucault (2016).
Heikki Patomäki is Professor of World Politics at University of Helsinki.
His most recent books are Disintegrative Tendencies in Global Political
Economy: Exits and Conflicts (2018) and Brexit and the Political Economy
of Fragmentation: Things Fall Apart (ed. with Jamie Morgan, 2018).
Henry Radice is a research fellow at the London School of Economics
and Political Science. He is co-editor (with Tim Allen and Anna Macdonald)
of Humanitarianism: A Dictionary of Concepts (2018).
Notes on Contributors
xi
Nicholas Rengger is Professor of Political Theory and International

Relations at the University of St Andrews. His most recent book is The
Anti-Pelagian Imagination in Political Theory and International
Relations: Dealing in Darkness (2017). He is currently finishing a book to
be titled Global Politics as a Vocation.
Brent J. Steele is the Francis D. Wormuth Presidential Chair and
Professor of Political Science at the University of Utah. He publishes on
international security, international ethics and US foreign policy. He is
currently pursuing research projects on the topics of restraint, vicarious
identity, micropolitics, and further studies on ontological security.
Colin Wight is a Professor of International Relations, and Chair of the
Department of Government and International Relations at the University
of Sydney. His most recent book is Rethinking Terrorism: Terrorism,
Violence, and the State (2016). He was editor-in-chief of the European
Journal of International Relations from 2008 to 2013.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Politics of International

Political Theory
Anthony F. Lang Jr. and Mathias Albert
1 Introduction
Chris Brown has been one of the most important figures in constituting
International Political Theory (IPT). Others have played crucial roles as
well, including some of those included in this volume. Yet it is Brown,
arguably, who has been central to putting political theory in conversation
with international relations theory. His ability to synthesize, critically
assess, and push the boundaries of these adjacent theoretical perspectives
has helped to frame world politics in ways that go beyond traditional and
often staid debates. Perhaps even more importantly, Brown has connected
sophisticated theoretical debates, both in contemporary and historical
theory, with pressing dilemmas of global politics in the current age. He
has consistently refused to keep theory distinct from the ‘world’ and has
also refused to let the ‘world’ of politics resist normative theorizing. In so
doing, he has brought forth the centrality of ‘judgment’, the ability to
A. F. Lang Jr. (*)

University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
M. Albert
Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
© The Author(s) 2019 1

M. Albert, A. F. Lang Jr. (eds.), The Politics of International
Political Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93278-1_1
2 A. F. LANG JR. AND M. ALBERT
draw upon forms of political wisdom to critique political practice. The

cultivation of judgement about world politics is where Brown’s IPT makes
its most distinctive mark.
This introductory chapter will situate Brown’s work in relation to wider
themes in IPT. We provide some context to Brown’s development as a
scholar, looking to the ways in which his ideas emerged in relation to dif-
ferent debates in both political theory and international relations. The first
section provides a brief intellectual biography. The second section explores
the idea of IPT through an engagement with three books through which
he has defined the field: International Relations Theory: New Normative
Approaches (IRT) (1992); Sovereignty, Rights and Justice (SRJ) (2002)
and International Society, Global Polity: An Introduction to International
Political Theory (ISGP) (2015). In the first work, he poses communitari-
anism against cosmopolitanism, in the second he poses sovereignty against
rights, and in the third he poses international society against global polity.1
These overlapping frames, while different in important ways, reflect a core
facet of Brown’s approach—negotiating the space between a world of
states and a world of individuals. This structure remains at the heart of
many treatments of IPT, and has, as such, shaped the theoretical orienta-
tion of many in the field. As Brown has moved away from his initial fram-
ing of the field in this way, this section instead looks more directly to how
he understands the task of IPT; that is, how he moves from an idea of
‘normative theory’ to IPT. We will also briefly address the issue of Brown’s
relation to the ‘English School’ of International Relations in this context,
as this is an approach which also seeks to locate a relationship between the
individual and the state, especially with the emergence of recent debates
about ‘world society’ (Buzan 2004).
The next part of the introduction looks to his engagement with the pre-
dominant liberal international order, particularly the ways in which power-
ful states in the Atlantic and wider European context have shaped discourses
on human rights, humanitarian intervention, and the use of military force.
This section looks at how Brown both defends and critiques liberal interna-
tionalism. For instance, he has argued in defence of human rights, yet also
pointed out that such rights cannot work without developing cultural
frameworks that enable the practice of such rights (Brown 2010b). He has
defended the importance of a global polity in which rights and democracy
are prominent, yet also noted that objections to universalism are not the
result of simple selfish interests but arise from a principled resistance to
colonialism and a valid moral defence of sovereignty (Brown 2015: 216).
INTRODUCTION: THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL THEORY 3
This section also explores briefly his reflections on cultural pluralism, an

issue that animates a great deal of his work.
The concluding section of the introduction turns to the theme of polit-
ical judgement, which appears throughout his career and especially in the
collection of essays entitled Practical Judgement in International Political
Theory: Selected Essays (2010). Brown draws his idea of judgement from a
broadly Aristotelian account, though he is by no means confined to the
ancient Greek understanding of this term. Inspired by Aristotle rather
than following him, Brown points to the contextual process by which indi-
viduals in positions of leadership must make decisions about difficult mat-
ters. But those decisions are not simply for leaders. He writes for a wider
audience than just the elites, having published books for classroom use,
including his bestselling textbook, Understanding International Relations
(Brown and Ainley 2009). He argues he is in the business of ‘public edu-
cation’ which is relevant for the student as much as for the leader, suggest-
ing that ‘we must try to cultivate the faculty for judgment in ourselves that
we hope [political leaders] will also cultivate’ (Brown 2010a: 249).
2 Intellectual Biography

One of the defining features of Brown’s scholarship is that he is grounded
in both historical and contemporary international affairs. Indeed, he notes
that ‘anyone who wishes to be taken seriously as a theorist of international
relations had better be steeped in international history and have a very
good knowledge of current affairs as well as a familiarity with the classics
of political thought’ (Brown 2010a: 2). Theorists of IPT have benefited
from this grounding not only by reading his work, but taking his classes,
engaging with him at conferences, and even interacting with him on social
media. In all these realms, Brown refuses to remain in the world of pure
theory (though he is well-grounded in this as well, as will become evident
below) but demands that theorists take seriously the tensions and com-
plexities of the contemporary international order.
This grounding in politics and history comes, perhaps, from the trajec-
tory by which Brown became part of academia.2 In 1963, at age 18,
Brown left his state Grammar School with better than expected exam
results, and entered the Civil Service as an executive officer in what was
then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. His ‘A’ levels gave
him the opportunity to go to university if he wished, and after sampling
the Civil Service he decided he did so wish, taking three years unpaid leave
in 1965 to attend the LSE and read for the BSc (Econ). Initially he
intended to study history as his special subject, but in the first year of the
degree he fell under the influence of Philip Windsor and so transferred to
International Relations. After receiving a First (a much more difficult
achievement at that time than it is in the modern British university),
Brown received a scholarship from the Ford Foundation-funded Centre
for International Studies at LSE, left the Civil Service, and so began work-
ing towards his PhD.
Brown took up a post at Kent University before completing his PhD. In
fact, he abandoned his thesis, which was on uses of history in international
theory and the rise of post-behaviourist scholarship, a topic which informs
some of his scholarship to this day. He realized in the 1990s that having a
PhD might be a benefit, so took one on the basis of his then recently pub-
lished book, International Theory: New Normative Perspectives (1992)
through a staff scheme at Kent. Outside of a short stint as a visiting lec-
turer at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Brown remained at
Kent until 1994. For four years, he was Professor of Politics at Southampton
University, and was then appointed to a chair in International Relations at
the LSE in 1998, where he remained until his retirement in 2014.
Brown published only a few works during his early career, a period
which allowed him to read widely and deeply across political theory and
international relations, something, he notes, which is less available to
many scholars in academia today as the pressure to publish has become
intense (Brown 2010a: 3). Brown’s ability to speak to so many different
theoretical traditions and connect those with contemporary political
events both domestic and international reflects the benefits of reading
before seeking to publish. He also notes that he benefited greatly from
colleagues outside of his department as well as inside at Kent University,
for they provided him insights into trends in the humanities that enabled
him to better appreciate postmodern theoretical developments. The
increasingly specialized nature of academic scholarship today militates
against such humanistic learning, a fact that contemporary scholars of IPT
should recognize and perhaps work towards altering. Indeed, one might
argue that IPT can only work within a humanistic approach, for it requires
training and knowledge of a broad range of different theoretical ideas.
This background knowledge was further enhanced during his time in
the USA, where he shared a department with Jean Bethke Elshtain and
William Connolly during the academic year 1981–1982, the former a
leading feminist (and later realist) thinker of international relations and
the latter one of the most prominent postmodernist political theorists

whose work continues to inform scholars in IR. Brown notes that Connolly
has been a major influence on this thinking, particularly in coming to grips
with the complexity of pluralism within liberal societies, though it is
unclear whether or not Brown would continue to follow some of
Connolly’s political and theoretical ideas (Brown 2010a: 4).
Brown published only one journal article and one report in the 1970s,
both on International Political Economy (IPE). These publications came,
in part, through the influence of Susan Strange, who was seeking to
develop IPE as a separate field within IR. Brown’s work returns to Strange
at different points in his career (e.g., Brown 2002: 232–235), though
perhaps her bigger influence is that, like Brown, she sought to carve out a
space within a dominant discourse for an alternative framing of International
Relations (IR). Beginning with his 1981 publication in the Review of
International Studies (Brown 1981), Brown began to push IR scholars to
a greater engagement with political and ethical theory. This work culmi-
nated in his book, IRT, which set the stage for his framing of IPT, explored
in more detail in the next section.
3 Framing and Reframing IPT

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, three of Brown’s books con-
stitute a theoretical framework that integrates a range of theoretical posi-
tions in order to better understand and evaluate international relations.
Only the third is written explicitly as a textbook, though really all three do
not fall easily into a ‘textbook’ or ‘monograph’ category; undoubtedly,
this reflects Brown’s approach to his career, where teaching and research
inform each other. Brown has authored a bestselling general IR textbook
as well, Understanding International Relations, now in its fourth edition
(2009). This text should not be ignored in developing an understanding
of how Brown conceives of IPT, for it presents IR theory as inclusive of
ethical considerations, something that many other textbooks refuse to do,
though we do not address it here at any length.3
In IRT, Brown proposes a conceptual distinction between cosmopoli-
tanism and communitarianism as a way to categorize thinking within IR
theory. This framing does not capture all the possible theories, but Brown
uses it to understand the competing normative orientations that underlie
IR theories. But because he largely leaves this framework behind, a better
focus is on how he understands the task of IPT. This requires appreciating
his initial approach to the idea of what it means to do ‘normative’ theory.

In IRT, he defines it in this way:
By normative international relations theory is meant that body of work

which addresses the moral dimension of international relations and the
wider questions of meaning and interpretation generated by the discipline.
At its most basic it addresses the ethical nature of the relations between
communities/states, whether in the context of the old agenda, which
focussed on violence and war, or the new(er) agenda, which mixes these
traditional concerns with the modern demand for international distributive
justice. (Brown 1992: 3)
Brown goes on to qualify this definition, noting that IR scholars have a

resistance to the term normative, for it assumes that the role of such the-
ory is to prescribe norms, and, as a result, that scholars in this realm have
‘some special knowledge which enables them to solve the difficult moral
dilemmas of the day’ (Brown 1992: 3). He disabuses readers of this
notion, pointing out that normative theorists might consider such ethical
dilemmas and read through works which address such questions more
than others, but, even if this is the case, ‘none of [this] amounts to any
kind of right to prescribe’ (Brown 1992: 3).
The concern expressed here brings forth an important dimension of
Brown’s work, one that not all normative theorists necessarily accept.
There has emerged, in recent years, a style of normative theory under-
taken largely by political philosophers that does indeed seek to prescribe.
Such works draw largely on analytical philosophical traditions of thought
in which problems of war, peace, justice, and rights appear largely as
problems of logic. It follows that, if careful thought is applied to these
problems, shared conclusions will result. Brown’s work does not fall into
this category of scholarship, and he has been explicitly critical of it in
areas such as just war (Brown 2017). As Brown argues, these matters
cannot be solved simply by better logical thinking or analytical precision.
Instead, such matters require a form of political judgement which results
from study of not just abstract theory but concrete reality, philosophical
tradition, and, perhaps, lived experience of political life. The question of
judgement will be addressed later in this chapter, but it would seem to
be prefigured by this caution about defining normative theory early on
his scholarship.
In defining his task in this way, Brown helpfully locates not just norma-
tive theorists but assumptions that orient much of the wider scholarship in
IR. For instance, the importance of the national interest to many realist
scholars relies on a valuation of the sovereign state over other institutional
forms. While classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau and George
Kennan were explicit about the moral value of the state (see Lang Jr.
2007), the same moral assumptions, usually unacknowledged, underlie
much of the research agendas of neorealist scholars, such as Kenneth
Waltz. This is not to disparage such works, but rather to highlight that
their normative agendas should be acknowledged and perhaps better
defended by those working in these areas.
A second point arising from Brown’s framing is that he undertakes it
through an engagement with the history of political thought. In his influ-
ential co-edited volume of texts drawn from this history, Brown (along
with Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger) contextualizes and makes rele-
vant this history (Brown et al. 2002). In his scholarship, this task is done
rather lightly by Brown, in such a way that these historical figures inform
his work without falling into a purely historicist approach. Brown uses
these figures to both reveal how IR theory might be inheritors of tradi-
tions which it may not know of and also, more importantly, engage in a
dialogue with them. For instance, in the chapter on communitarianism in
IRT, Brown engages in an extended discussion of G.W.F. Hegel. One way
to read Hegel in the context of IR theory would be to locate the ways in
which realists such as Morgenthau inherited a Hegelian state worship
which has informed the study of IR ever since. This link Brown acknowl-
edges, but he also explores the subtleties of Hegel’s ideas in relation to
other theorists, both those against whom Hegel was reacting and those
who developed his ideas throughout the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.4 Even more importantly, Brown does not simply accept Hegel’s
theories, but notes the difficulty of accepting a ‘secular’ Hegel (Brown
1992: 64). This critical encounter with Hegel suggests how Brown’s work
moves from ‘normative IR theory’ to IPT; that is, instead of simply under-
taking a history of political thought or IR theory, Brown is engaging in a
critical dialogue with that history in order to better understand different
positions within IR theory.
Brown concludes IRT with a discussion of what was at the time of his
writing a new set of approaches in IR theory—critical and postmodern
theories. He provides a nuanced and careful overview of such theories.
This overview is reduced to one paragraph in SRJ (Brown 2002: 17) and
completely disappears from ISGP. He suggests that,
Some of this work is certainly valuable, but, on the whole, it is regrettable

that it has come to play so prominent a role [in IPT]. When difficult and
complex ideas genuinely illuminate important topics they must be con-
fronted, but difficulty for its own sake is not a virtue and the narcissistivc,
hermetic quality of much of this work limits its relevance. (Brown 2002: 17)
This critique of postmodern and critical theory reveals a further impor-

tant point about Brown’s approach to IPT. It is clear from his overview in
IRT that Brown is well versed in this work; as noted above, William
Connolly, a leading postmodernist theorist, was a crucial influence on
Brown early on in his career. Unlike many today, Brown has read not just
Richard Ashley and R.B.J. Walker but Jacques Derrida and Michel
Foucault, along with their forebears such as Nietzsche. That is, rather than
the derivative work which constitutes so much of postmodern IR theory,
Brown highlights how important it is for theorists to read those who pro-
vided the foundations for this work. In addition, Brown’s critique is not
necessarily one of substance but of style. This point is not meant in a dis-
paraging way about Brown. Instead, it indicates how important style is to
his presentation of ideas. Any reader of Brown’s work will recognize his
ability to make complex theoretical arguments accessible and relevant,
something that many theorists—whether they are analytic moral philoso-
phers, postmodernists, or neorealists—fail to do. IPT is about reading and
drawing from theorists across a wide spectrum without falling into an
overly specialized discourse that fails to connect with issues and concerns
of the contemporary condition.
SRJ continues with the broadly defined cosmopolitan/communitarian
framework, though it largely eschews those terms; indeed, Brown argues
that the distinction perhaps obscures things more than clarifies (Brown
2002: 17, 2010a: 8). Instead, by locating sovereignty in relationship to
rights, Brown points to the underlying moral frame of the community and
the individual. Here we begin to see the influence of liberal thought on
Brown’s work, a topic explored in the next section. Brown also distin-
guishes this work from his previous one by seeking to set aside the idea of
‘normative theory’, suggesting that SRJ is about ‘interpretation’ (Brown
2002: 3). In so doing, and in highlighting the three terms sovereignty,
rights and justice, this book has a stronger political theory orientation
than the previous one. It is here that the idea of IPT begins to take shape
as a conscious endeavour.
SRJ explores a number of important themes, some of which extend
those previously addressed in IRT. Completed only weeks before the
attacks of September 11, 2001, the book includes a short prologue
addressing the significance of that event. At the same time, it notes that
the work as it stands speaks directly to the underlying themes brought
forth by the attacks and the ensuing debates about the clash of civilizations
and the rise of violent non-state actors. The last three chapters explore
cultural diversity and the state system, which became (and continue to be)
directly relevant to the conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East. One
point he makes in responding to September 11 is directly relevant to how
he understands IPT. He notes that Samuel Huntington’s idea of a ‘clash
of civilizations’ while raising an important point, simplifies and essential-
izes a number of complex themes which the field of IPT seeks to interpret.
In response, Brown argues:
One, possibly desirable, alternative to a clash of civilization is cross-cultural

dialogue – but only if it is understood that dialogue is not an easy option.
The only dialogue that is worth having, that is not simply an exchange of
clichés, is one in which all the parties examine critically, as well as set out,
their own values. ‘Westerners’ must examine their role in the various con-
flicts that poison Middle Eastern politics, and must address the demands for
global social justice that emanate from the losers in today’s world economy,
but, equally, Muslims must ask themselves whether it is really plausible that
all the woes of the so-called world of Islam are the responsibility of America,
and, in particular, whether the savage theology of the al-Qaeda network and
the Taliban deserves the respect it receives in many mosques and in the
independent Arab media. (Brown 2002: xii)
This is a powerful call to those interested in international relations to

avoid simplicity on either side of the debate. Asking all interested parties
to critically assess and, perhaps more importantly, set out value orienta-
tions is a challenge and an opportunity. Brown’s efforts to set out the
‘Western’ tradition reflects one side of this approach, and his request that
others do the same from within their own traditions represents a more
vigorous and robust form of IPT than is sometimes found in efforts at
interfaith dialogue or comparative political theory.
His most recent book is the one most explicitly presented as an IPT
textbook. ISGP (2016) moves his framing further away from the cosmo-
politan/communitarian structure found in IRT. Instead, ISGP presents
the issues of war, justice, and human rights through the framework of a
society of states versus a global polity of agents which includes states but
also puts individuals and other actors forward as important parts of the
international system. International society draws on both international law
and ‘English School’ theories of IR, bringing them together in a creative
way to understand the use of force, human rights, and humanitarian inter-
vention. The global polity idea is not a purely cosmopolitan alternative,
however, for Brown notes that to see the world as a global polity does not
remove states but understands them as one among many agents in the
international order. It does, however, like cosmopolitanism, put the indi-
vidual person first and understands that person’s rights and responsibilities
differently than a purely society of states approach. In so doing, Brown is
able to reframe issues such as distributive justice, international criminal
law, and humanitarian intervention in new and interesting ways.
This alternative framing reminds IPT theorists of the importance of
certain strands in IR theory. At one level, this should not be surprising, for
Brown has always seen IPT as related to IR theory. But, for some who
come to IPT from disciplines such as philosophy and who adopt more
strictly liberal cosmopolitan orientations, the idea of a society of states
makes little or no sense. As such, Brown’s framing here provides an alter-
native to some of the staid debates about just war, distributive justice, and
human rights that often animate such theorists. In some sense, Brown’s
approach in this book is to look at the same issues and events through the
two different framing prisms, resulting in, for instance, two parallel
discussions of intervention and humanitarianism. Importantly, his argu-
ment is not a progressive one in which the society of states is replaced by
the global polity; rather, his argument is that the two sit side by side in the
world order and result in conflicting understandings and moral valuations
of what is going on around us.
One interesting question in this context, and one certainly also sug-
gested by the title of the book, International Society, Global Polity, is
whether Brown—or, more correctly, Brown-style IPT—actually is part of
the so-called English School. While opinions on this issue vary, and the
question about membership might not be that useful if the person in ques-
tion repeatedly insists that he is not a member, the English School certainly
features prominently in Brown’s thought. While not counting him in the
inner circle, Buzan’s bookkeeping on the subject lists him as ‘regular con-
tributor’, the definition of which being someone who has ‘written three or
more substantial items directly on English school topics’ (Buzan 2014: 1).
We argue that Chris Brown’s relation to the English School can best be
described by three characteristics: Firstly, he seems to broadly agree that
the analytical triptych of an international system (of states), and interna-
tional society (of states), and a world society and/or community (of,
according to some versions, non-states only or non-states and states
together) is a useful figure for describing the social orders of international
relations. However, secondly, he remains critical of the English School’s
emphasis on international society in this context. This criticism pertains
not primarily to empirical diagnoses about the existence of a social forma-
tion that can be described as an international society of states. Rather, in a
criticism that actually resonates with much of Brown’s criticism of IR the-
ory that is not IPT, he argues ‘that an approach that places primary empha-
sis on the nature of international society is likely to isolate itself from the
wider discourses of political and social philosophy in ways that cannot be
defended in terms of any alleged sui generis features of international rela-
tions’ (Brown 2000: 91; emphases in original). Thirdly, however, for all
his professed non-membership in the English School, when it comes to
confronting its thought with theoretically quite different takes on interna-
tional politics and world order, there is an impression that he would rather
err on the English School side (see, for example, Brown 2004 in relation
to systems theory).5
In ISGP, Brown once more seeks to distinguish his approach from
those more prescriptive theorists of IPT. In so doing, he differentiates IPT
from ethics and international affairs, though he certainly acknowledges
the importance of those undertaking this work, for instance, at the
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and their house jour-
nal Ethics & International Affairs.6 For Brown, though, his approach is
that of a political theorist, one whose job is not to advocate for policy
prescriptions but to interpret and clarify. This matches his call in the pro-
logue to SRJ, in which he asks us to ‘set out our values’, a task sometimes
assumed rather than undertaken.
In sum, Brown has framed and reframed IPT through these three texts,
along with many others. In so doing, he has developed the field of IPT in
important and interesting ways. Admittedly, some issues and concerns slip
through these frames, leaving us without his powerful insights into impor-
tant matters such as world religion and the environment. But, despite
these lacunae, Brown’s understanding of IPT has shaped our

understanding(s) and provides a powerful tool by which to interpret and
evaluate the world around us.
4 Liberalism and Brown

Brown is not associated with liberal IR theory or even liberal political
theory. As indicated in the previous section, his work seeks to interpret the
ways in which various IR theories assume certain normative agendas and/
or value-based assumptions. One of the dominant underlying theoretical
assumptions in the study and practice of international relations is liberal-
ism. As a result, IPT, as with many other theoretical approaches, might be
read as a response to this underlying liberal agenda. Can we read Brown’s
work in a similar way?
Brown was influenced by one of the leading theorists of liberal political
theory, Brian Barry. In saying this, however, Brown notes that the shape
of his political theory (and perhaps political views) is closer to a communi-
tarian thinker, Michael Walzer (Brown 2010a: 4).7 He notes in his intel-
lectual biography that he read widely and, one can imagine, sympathetically
a number of Marxist and critical theory works on global politics. And, as
noted in the previous section, he was greatly influenced by the postmod-
ernist theories of figures such as William Connolly. It is clear, though, that
in reading through the corpus of his works, Brown is less sympathetic to
those works today. One reason for this is his argument that there has been
a ‘loss of faith in rational discourse of the liberal left’ (Brown 2010a: 10),
a category of scholars which includes both the critical/Marxist and post-
modern perspectives. He is a strong critic of this failure of liberal theorists
to think carefully through their presumptions and values, but at the same
time he finds himself uneasy in this position. As he says,
Had I realised then that the natural defenders of the Enlightenment were
going to make such a poor fist of the task over the next two decades, I would
have been a lot less willing to endorse their critics. I suppose I am really
acknowledging a degree of hypocrisy here; along with a great many late-
modern writers, I surmise, I was willing to kick against liberal rationalism
largely because I thought it would always be there. Part of the story that
unfolds in subsequent essays reflects a gradual realization that this might not
be the case. (Brown 2010a: 11)
This admission suggests that Brown sees part of his task as one of criti-
cism, the kind of criticism described in the previous section, one of engag-
ing in dialogue with others but only if they can engage in similar forms of
critique. Liberalism provided a standard against which all such critique
took place, but as Brown notes here, if the underlying rational discourse
assumed by liberalism fails, then perhaps liberalism itself may need
rescuing?
As expressed in this quote, though, Brown himself has been a rather
pungent critic of many liberal assumptions. He acknowledges the impor-
tance of figures such as John Rawls (Brown 2002) and Charles Beitz
(Brown 2005) in establishing liberal political theory and making it rele-
vant for understanding the international realm. Indeed, he defends Rawls’
turn to the international more than some students of Rawls, such as Beitz
and Thomas Pogge. In an essay on liberalism and the globalization of eth-
ics, Brown acknowledges liberalism’s complexity, though he notes that it
relies, ultimately, on the importance of the individual (Brown 2010a:
165). This essay explores one of the core dilemmas of liberalism, either
domestic or international; the tension between the universalism of defend-
ing that individual and his/her rights and the necessity of accepting and
tolerating differences among individuals and communities to pursue their
own goals and life plans. This core liberal dilemma, one addressed by fig-
ures such as John Locke, informs much of Brown’s scholarship. That is,
seeking to negotiate this space between the particular and the universal
constitutes a central dimension of Brown’s work, and, one might argue,
IPT more generally.
A different approach to this same issue comes out in Brown’s reflections
on human rights. His essay ‘Universal Human Rights: A Critique’ (Brown
2010b [1998]) provides a powerful and important assessment of the prob-
lems surrounding human rights. Criticisms of the universality of human
rights abound, but Brown’s critique refuses to be a simple one of relativ-
ism. Rather, in a nuanced and powerful argument, he posits that human
rights can only work in particular kinds of liberal societies, one from within
which human rights defenders either write or act. Without this cultural
context, human rights cannot be advanced globally. In making this point,
he does not privilege the Western cultures which first generated rights, for
he notes that they themselves have perhaps lost that culture; for instance,
‘Americans have more and more rights, but less and less of a society within
to exercise them’ (Brown 2010b: 62). The conclusion of this chapter
argues that, once more, liberal theorists need to better establish the theo-
retical foundations and assumptions that drive their advocacy of human

rights. He concludes the chapter by arguing that only a focus on cultivat-
ing a particular kind of civil society will allow the emergence and protec-
tion of human rights.
On this point, we can suggest one way in which Brown’s approach to
IPT can be seen in relation to liberalism. He has cultivated a particular
understanding of pluralism, one that does not accept all cultures as good
or worth pursuing, but as potential points of argument and debate. This
means that engaging in debates about human rights cannot proceed from
an assured assumption of a human nature which by necessity desires free-
dom. Rather, true pluralism requires careful understanding of and engage-
ment with others and one’s own community. It requires judgement, for
true judgement demands understanding not only the other but oneself.
The final section of this introduction turns to this important political vir-
tue in Brown’s work.
5 Political Judgement and Pluralism

Brown entitles his 2010 collection of essays, Practical Judgement in
International Political Theory. The book does not present a theory of
practical judgement but includes five essays which ‘represent the kind of
practical-minded thinking that I wish to promote’ (Brown 2010b: 15). In
those essays, which cover contested topics such as humanitarian interven-
tion and pre-emptive military action, Brown exercises his own judgement
in relation to ethical debates within the global realm. His judgements,
particularly on the use of force, stand counter to many assumptions and
arguments that have framed these debates among his fellow scholars of IR
and IPT. For instance, Brown argues, unlike many, that it is legitimate to
be selective about when to engage in humanitarian intervention, which
stands in direct contrast to those who argue that the consistency in these
matters is fundamental to their moral legitimacy. And, in the matter of
pre-emption, Brown argues that we cannot simply rule it out on legal
grounds or through interpretive strategies which paint the US and UK use
of this strategy in the Iraq war as evidence of the moral evil of Tony Blair
or George Bush. He points out that the hatred for these two leaders does
not necessarily ‘build the capacity for making the right kind of judgment’
(Brown 2010b: 249).
The idea of practical judgement arises from a number of sources.
Aristotle provides one well known formulation through his theory of the
virtues. For Aristotle, the human condition is defined by two basic factors:
our intellect and our communal living. These two things combined sepa-
rate us from the rest of the physical world. For Aristotle, they also generate
the two virtues that define what it means to be the best kind of person, the
intellectual and practical virtues. In describing the virtues, Aristotle first
explains the moral virtues, which are those shaped by habit and political
life. They are designed to cultivate an ability to choose how to act, not
how to think. Their importance derives from the fact that humans live in
community and so must be able to act together. The second type of virtue
is the intellectual one, which he treats in Book VI of the Nicomachean
Ethics and which is derived from the discussion of scientific reasoning
found in the Posterior Analytics. Scientific reasoning entails thinking from
first principles and the reasoning that follows from them results in knowl-
edge that cannot be otherwise.
But reasoning must also take into account the particulars and the induc-
tive process that provides a foundation for thinking. Scientific thinking is
not the intellectual virtue on which Aristotle places his emphasis. Rather,
it is deliberative thinking, or the dialectical process described in the Topics.
Aristotle argues that practical deliberation should not lead us to downplay
scientific reasoning, only that to be a fully happy human person we need
the deliberative form of reasoning in order to move us towards action.
Combined with habits and character, the practical wisdom of deliberative
excellence results in the good person.
Aristotle’s account of the virtues relies on a particular place and time,
that of the fourth century BC Greek gentlemen scholar. Such a person no
longer exists, and so perhaps we should not idealize this way of thinking.
Indeed, his biology relies on assumptions about gender and generation
that are fundamentally flawed, leading him to disparage the ability of
women to achieve equality with men. Brown does not share those assump-
tions with Aristotle.
Rather, Brown shares with Aristotle (and with many of the classical real-
ists) the idea that any form of political reasoning must be dialectical rather
than solely deductive and it must take into account the particulars of the
situations within which such reasoning takes place. So, rather than being
guided by a universal liberal or legal logic to which all participants must
agree in advance, Brown suggests a different form of reasoning, one which
demands taking seriously the contexts, often very conflictual and even
dangerous contexts, that shape world politics. Simple solutions based on
Western ideals of human rights or the rule of law cannot be the sole way
of thinking through the problems that bedevil the world today.
This brings us back to pluralism. As noted in the previous section,
Brown’s scholarship speaks to a plural world. He demands that critical
reflection take place among all participants. The standards against which
such reflection takes place are related to and perhaps unconsciously parasitic
on broad liberal ideas, but Brown does not allow those to serve as trump
cards. Rather, he argues for a form of deep pluralism, one that respects the
capacity of all persons to engage in critical dialogue and reflection on theirs
and others practices. We may not agree on all his political judgements, but
his demand that we think carefully about how to go about making such
judgements, is perhaps his most important contribution to the field of IPT.
Notes
1. The books include much more than these simple dichotomies, and Brown
has sought to resist the ‘cosmopolitan vs communitarian’ framework as the
defining feature of his work and IPT.
2. At the time of this writing, Brown is working on a revised fifth edition of this
textbook.
3. See Brown’s description of his intellectual trajectory in Brown (2010: 1–16).
4. Mervyn Frost is perhaps the most prominent Hegelian among IR theorists,
who also contributes to this volume; see Frost (1986, 1996).
5. It’s like not being a FC Southampton fan, but still favouring it over all the
others (if it’s not Chelsea, that is).
6. One of Brown’s early publications is in Ethics & International Affairs, an
effort to redefine Hegel for a generation of theorists who saw him as a foun-
dation for German militarism; Brown (1991), reprinted in Brown (2010).
7. To call Walzer communitarian rather than liberal, though, distorts his views
to some extent. While his work clearly has a strong communitarian orienta-
tion, he defends liberal ideas and practices in much of his writing and in his
role as long-time editor of Dissent magazine.
References
Brown, C. (1981). International Theory: New Directions? Review of International
Studies, 7(03), 173.
Brown, C. (1992). International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, C. (2000). The ‘English School’: International Theory and International
Society. In M. Albert, L. Brock, & K. D. Wolf (Eds.), Civilizing World Politics.
Society and Community Beyond the State (pp. 91–102). Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Brown, C. (2002). Sovereignty, Rights, and Justice: International Politcal Theory

Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, C. (2004). The English School and World Society. In M. Albert &
L. Hilkermeier (Eds.), Observing International Relations: Niklas Luhmann
and World Politics. New International Relations (Vol. 1., 1st., pp. 59–71).
London: Routledge.
Brown, C. (2005). The House that Chuck Built: Twenty-Five Years of Reading
Charles Beitz. Review of International Studies, 31(2), 371–329.
Brown, C. (2010a). Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected
Essays. London: Routledge.
Brown, C. (2010b [1998]). Universal Human Rights: A Critique. In C. Brown
(Ed.), Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays
(pp. 53–71). London: Routledge. Originally in Dunne, T., & Wheeler, N. J.
(Eds.). (1998). Human Rights and Global Politics (pp. 103–127). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, C. (2014). The ‘English School’ and World Society. In M. Albert &
L. Hilkermeier (Eds.), Observing International Relations. Niklas Luhmann
and World Politics (pp. 59–71). London: Routledge.
Brown, C. (2015). International Society, Global Polity: An Introduction to
International Political Theory. London: Sage.
Brown, C. (2017). Revisionist Just War Theory and the Impossibility of a Moral
Victory. In C. O’Driscoll, A. Hom, & K. Mills (Eds.), Moral Victories: The
Ethics of Winning Wars (pp. 85–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2009). Understanding International Relations (4th ed.).
London: Palgrave.
Brown, C., Nardin, T., & Rengger, N. (Eds.). (2002). International Relations in
Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and
the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. (2014). The English School: A Bibliography (version of 2 September 2014).
Online. Available from: https://de.scribd.com/document/277138693/The-
English-School-a-Bibliography. Accessed 22 Sept 2017.
Frost, M. (1986). Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations: A
Critical Analysis of the Philosophical and Methodological Assumptions in the
Discipline with Proposals towards a Substantive Normative Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Frost, M. (1996). Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, A., Jr. (2007). Morgenthau, Agency and Aristotle. In M. Williams (Ed.),
Reconsidering Realism: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International
Relations (pp. 18–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PART I
Judgement, Reason, and Humanity

CHAPTER 2
Dogmatic Anti-dogmatism: Learning

from Chris Brown
Colin Wight
Had I realised then that the natural defenders of the Enlightenment

were going to make such a poor fist of the task over the next two decades,
I would have been a lot less willing to endorse their critics. I suppose I
am really acknowledging a degree of hypocrisy here; along with a great
many late modern writers, I surmise, I was willing to kick against
liberal rationalism largely because I thought it will always be there.
Part of the story that unfolds in subsequent essays reflects the gradual
realisation that this might not be the case. (Brown 2010: 16)
1 Introduction
Surveying the intellectual landscape post-Brexit, and after the election of
Donald Trump as the President of the USA, one word sticks out: post-
truth. Declared the word of the year for 2016 by the Oxford English
Dictionary, the term has a longer history. Stephen Colbert had coined the
term ‘truthiness’ to refer to a situation where emotions take precedence
over facts in public debate (Zimmer 2010). This fits well with the Oxford
English Dictionary definition of post-truth: ‘Relating to or denoting
C. Wight (*)
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
© The Author(s) 2019 21

M. Albert, A. F. Lang Jr. (eds.), The Politics of International
Political Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93278-1_2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
audience and apparatus, and, by the help of these external
appearances, immediately concluded that I had received the battery
discharge. The intellectual consciousness of my position was
restored with exceeding rapidity, but not so the optical
consciousness. To prevent the audience from being alarmed, I
observed that it had often been my desire to receive accidentally
such a shock, and that my wish had at length been fulfilled. But,
while making this remark, the appearance which my body presented
to myself was that of a number of separate pieces. The arms, for
example, were detached from the trunk, and seemed suspended in
the air. In fact, memory and the power of reasoning appeared to be
complete long before the optic nerve was restored to healthy action.
But what I wish chiefly to dwell upon here is, the absolute
painlessness of the shock; and there cannot be a doubt that, to a
person struck dead by lightning, the passage from life to death
occurs without consciousness being in the least degree implicated. It
is an abrupt stoppage of sensation, unaccompanied by a pang.”
Occasionally branched markings are found on the bodies of
those struck by lightning, and these are often taken to be
photographic impressions of trees under which the persons may
have been standing at the time of the flash. The markings however
are nothing of the kind, but are merely physiological effects due to
the passage of the discharge.
During a thunderstorm it is safer to be in the house than out in
the open. It is probable that draughts are a source of some danger,
and the windows and doors of the room ought to be shut. Animals
are more liable to be struck by lightning than men, and a shed
containing horses or cows is a dangerous place in which to take
shelter; in fact it is better to remain in the open. If one is caught in a
storm while out of reach of a house or other building free from
draughts and containing no animals, the safest plan is to lie down,
not minding the rain. Umbrellas are distinctly dangerous, and never
should be used during a storm. Wire fences, hedges, and still or
running water should be given a wide berth, and it is safer to be
alone than in company with a crowd of people. It is extremely foolish
to take shelter under an isolated tree, for such trees are very liable to
be struck. Isolated beech trees appear to have considerable
immunity from lightning, but any tree standing alone should be
avoided, the oak being particularly dangerous. On the other hand, a
fairly thick wood is comparatively safe, and failing a house, should
be chosen before all other places of refuge. Horses are liable to be
struck, and if a storm comes on while one is out driving it is safer to
keep quite clear of the animals.
When a Wimshurst machine has been in action for a little time a
peculiar odour is noticed. This is due to the formation of a modified
and chemically more active form of oxygen, called ozone, the name
being derived from the Greek ozein, “to smell.” Ozone has very
invigorating effects when breathed, and it is also a powerful
germicide, capable of killing the germs which give rise to contagious
diseases. During a thunderstorm ozone is produced in large
quantities by the electric discharges, and thus the air receives as it
were a new lease of life, and we feel the refreshing effects when the
storm is over. We shall speak again of ozone in Chapter XXV.
Thunder probably is caused by the heating and sudden
expansion of the air in the path of the discharge, which creates a
partial vacuum into which the surrounding air rushes violently. Light
travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, and therefore the
flash reaches us practically instantaneously; but sound travels at the
rate of only about 1115 feet per second, so that the thunder takes an
appreciable time to reach us, and the farther away the discharge the
greater the interval between the flash and the thunder. Thus by
multiplying the number of seconds which elapse between the flash
and the thunder by 1115, we may calculate roughly the distance in
feet of the discharge. A lightning flash may be several miles in
length, the greatest recorded length being about ten miles. The
sounds produced at different points along its path reach us at
different times, producing the familiar sharp rattle, and the following
rolling and rumbling is produced by the echoes from other clouds.
The noise of a thunder-clap is so tremendous that it seems as
though the sound would be heard far and wide, but the greatest
distance at which thunder has been heard is about fifteen miles. In
this respect it is interesting to compare the loudest thunder-clap we
ever heard with the noise of the famous eruption of Krakatoa, in
1883, which was heard at the enormous distance of nearly three
thousand miles.
When Franklin had demonstrated the nature of lightning, he
began to consider the possibility of protecting buildings from the
disastrous effects of the lightning stroke. At that time the amount of
damage caused by lightning was very great. Cathedrals, churches,
public buildings, and in fact all tall edifices were in danger every time
a severe thunderstorm took place in their neighbourhood, for there
was absolutely nothing to prevent their destruction if the lightning
chanced to strike them. Ships at sea, too, were damaged very
frequently by lightning, and often some of the crew were killed or
disabled. To-day, thanks to the lightning conductor, it is an unusual
occurrence for ships or large buildings to be damaged by lightning.
The lightning strikes them as before, but in the great majority of
cases it is led away harmlessly to earth.
Franklin was the first to suggest the possibility of protecting
buildings by means of a rod of some conducting material terminating
in a point at the highest part of the building, and leading down,
outside the building, into the earth. Lightning conductors at the
present day are similar to Franklin’s rod, but many improvements
have been made from time to time as our knowledge of the nature
and action of the lightning discharge has increased. A modern
lightning conductor generally consists of one or more pointed rods
fixed to the highest parts of the building, and connected to a cable
running directly to earth. This cable is kept as straight as possible,
because turns and bends offer a very high resistance to the rapidly
oscillating discharge; and it is connected to large copper plates
buried in permanently moist ground or in water, or to water or gas
mains. Copper is generally used for the cable, but iron also may be
employed. In any case, the cable must be of sufficient thickness to
prevent the possibility of its being deflagrated by the discharge. In
ships the arrangements are similar, except that the cable is
connected to the copper sheathing of the bottom.
The fixing of lightning conductors must be carried out with great
care, for an improperly fixed conductor is not only useless, but may
be a source of actual danger. Lightning flashes vary greatly in
character, and while a carefully erected lightning conductor is
capable of dealing with most of them, there are unfortunately certain
kinds of discharge with which it now and then is unable to deal. The
only absolutely certain way of protecting a building is to surround it
completely by a sort of cage of metal, but except for buildings in
which explosives are stored this plan is usually impracticable.
The electricity of the atmosphere manifests itself in other forms
beside the lightning. The most remarkable of these manifestations is
the beautiful phenomenon known in the Northern Hemisphere as the
Aurora Borealis, and in the Southern Hemisphere as the Aurora
Australis. Aurora means the morning hour or dawn, and the
phenomenon is so called from its resemblance to the dawn of day.
The aurora is seen in its full glory only in high latitudes, and it is quite
unknown at the equator. It assumes various forms, sometimes
appearing as an arch of light with rapidly moving streamers of
different colours, and sometimes taking the form of a luminous
curtain extending across the sky. The light of the aurora is never very
strong, and as a rule stars can be seen through it. Auroras are
sometimes accompanied by rustling or crackling sounds, but the
sounds are always extremely faint. Some authorities assert that
these sounds do not exist, and that they are the result of
imagination, but other equally reliable observers have heard the
sounds quite plainly on several occasions. Probably the explanation
of this confliction of evidence is that the great majority of auroras are
silent, so that an observer might witness many of them without
hearing any sounds. The height at which auroras occur is a disputed
point, and one which it is difficult to determine accurately; but most
observers agree that it is generally from 60 to 125 miles above the
Earth’s surface.
There is little doubt that the aurora is caused by the passage of
electric discharges through the higher regions of the atmosphere,
where the air is so rarefied as to act as a partial conductor; and its
effects can be imitated in some degree by passing powerful
discharges through tubes from which the air has been exhausted to
a partial vacuum. Auroral displays are usually accompanied by
magnetic disturbances, which sometimes completely upset
telegraphic communication. Auroras and magnetic storms appear to
be connected in some way with solar disturbances, for they are
frequently simultaneous with an unusual number of sunspots, and all
three run in cycles of about eleven and a half years.
CHAPTER IV
THE ELECTRIC CURRENT
In the previous chapters we have dealt with electricity in charged

bodies, or static electricity, and now we must turn to electricity in
motion, or current electricity. In Chapter I. we saw that if a metal rod
is held in the hand and rubbed, electricity is produced, but it
immediately escapes along the rod to the hand, and so to the earth.
In other words, the electricity flows away along the conducting path
provided by the rod and the hand. When we see the word “flow” we
at once think of a fluid of some kind, and we often hear people speak
of the “electric fluid.” Now, whatever electricity may be it certainly is
not a fluid, and we use the word “flow” in connexion with electricity
simply because it is the most convenient word we can find for the
purpose. Just in the same way we might say that when we hold a
poker with its point in the fire, heat flows along it towards our hand,
although we know quite well that heat is not a fluid. In the experiment
with the metal rod referred to above, the electricity flows away
instantly, leaving the rod unelectrified; but if we arrange matters so
that the electricity is renewed as fast as it flows away, then we get a
continuous flow, or current.
Somewhere about the year 1780 an Italian anatomist, Luigi
Galvani, was studying the effects of electricity upon animal
organisms, using for the purpose the legs of freshly killed frogs. In
the course of his experiments he happened to hang against an iron
window rail a bundle of frogs’ legs fastened together with a piece of
copper wire, and he noticed that the legs began to twitch in a
peculiar manner. He knew that a frog’s leg would twitch when
electricity was applied to it, and he concluded that the twitchings in
this case were caused in the same way. So far he was quite right,
but then came the problem of how any electricity could be produced
in these circumstances, and here he went astray. It never occurred
to him that the source of the electricity might be found in something
quite apart from the legs, and so he came to the conclusion that the
phenomenon was due to electricity produced in some mysterious
way in the tissues of the animal itself. He therefore announced that
he had discovered the existence of a kind of animal electricity, and it
was left for his fellow-countryman, Alessandro Volta, to prove that
the twitchings were due to electricity produced by the contact of the
two metals, the iron of the window rail and the copper wire.
Volta found that when two
different metals were placed in
contact in air, one became
positively charged, and the other
negatively. These charges
however were extremely feeble,
and in his endeavours to obtain
stronger results he hit upon the
idea of using a number of pairs of
metals, and he constructed the
apparatus known as the Voltaic
pile, Fig. 6. This consists of a
number of pairs of zinc and copper
discs, each pair being separated
from the next pair by a disc of cloth
moistened with salt water. These
are piled up and placed in a frame,
as shown in the figure. One end of
Fig. 6.—Voltaic Pile. the pile thus terminates in a zinc
disc, and the other in a copper
disc, and as soon as the two are connected by a wire or other
conductor a continuous current of electricity is produced. The cause
of the electricity produced by the voltaic pile was the subject of a
long and heated controversy. There were two main theories; that of
Volta himself, which attributed the electricity to the mere contact of
unlike metals, and the chemical theory, which ascribed it to chemical
action. The chemical theory is now generally accepted, but certain
points, into which we need not enter, are still in dispute.
There is a curious experiment which some of my readers may
like to try. Place a copper coin on a sheet of zinc, and set an ordinary
garden snail to crawl across the zinc towards the coin. As soon as
the snail comes in contact with the copper it shrinks back, and shows
every sign of having received a shock. One can well imagine that an
enthusiastic gardener pestered with snails would watch this
experiment with great glee.
Volta soon found that it was not
necessary to have his pairs of metals in
actual metallic contact, and that better
results were got by placing them in a
vessel filled with dilute acid. Fig. 7 is a
diagram of a simple voltaic cell of this
kind, and it shows the direction of the
current when the zinc and the copper are
connected by the wire. In order to get
some idea of the reason why a current
flows we must understand the meaning of
electric potential. If water is poured into a
vessel, a certain water pressure is
produced. The amount of this pressure
depends upon the level of the water, and
this in turn depends upon the quantity of
water and the capacity of the vessel, for a Fig. 7.—Simple Voltaic Cell.
given quantity of water will reach a higher
level in a small vessel than in a larger
one. In the same way, if electricity is imparted to a conductor an
electric pressure is produced, its amount depending upon the
quantity of electricity and the electric capacity of the conductor, for
conductors vary in capacity just as water vessels do.
This electric pressure is called “potential,” and electricity tends to
flow from a conductor of higher to one of lower potential. When we
say that a place is so many feet above or below sea-level we are
using the level of the sea as a zero level, and in estimating electric
potential we take the potential of the earth’s surface as zero; and we
regard a positively electrified body as one at a positive or relatively
high potential, and a negatively electrified body as one at a negative
or relatively low potential. This may be clearer if we think of
temperature and the thermometer. Temperatures above zero are
positive and represented by the sign +, and those below zero are
negative and represented by the sign -. Thus we assume that an
electric current flows from a positive to a negative conductor.
PLATE I.
By permission of Dick, Kerr & Co. Ltd.
HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER STATION.
In a voltaic cell the plates are at different potentials, so that when

they are connected by a wire a current flows, and we say that the
current leaves the cell at the positive terminal, and enters it again at
the negative terminal. As shown in Fig. 7, the current moves in
opposite directions inside and outside the cell, making a complete
round called a circuit, and if the circuit is broken anywhere the
current ceases to flow. If the circuit is complete the current keeps on
flowing, trying to equalize the electric pressure or potential, but it is
unable to do this because the chemical action between the acid and
the zinc maintains the difference of potential between the plates.
This chemical action results in wasting of the zinc and weakening of
the acid, and as long as it continues the current keeps on flowing.
When we wish to stop the current we break the circuit by
disconnecting the wire joining the terminals, and the cell then should
be at rest; but owing to the impurities in ordinary commercial zinc
chemical action still continues. In order to prevent wasting when the
current is not required the surface of the zinc is coated with a thin
film of mercury. The zinc is then said to be amalgamated, and it is
not acted upon by the acid so long as the circuit remains broken.
The current from a simple voltaic cell does not remain at a
constant strength, but after a short time it begins to weaken rapidly.
The cell is then said to be polarized, and this polarization is caused
by bubbles of hydrogen gas which accumulate on the surface of the
copper plate during the chemical action. These bubbles of gas
weaken the current partly by resisting its flow, for they are bad
conductors, and still more by trying to set up another current in the
opposite direction. For this reason the simple voltaic cell is
unsuitable for long spells of work, and many cells have been devised
to avoid the polarization trouble. One of the most successful of these
is the Daniell cell. It consists of an outer vessel of copper, which
serves as the copper plate, and an inner porous pot containing a
zinc rod. Dilute sulphuric acid is put into the porous pot and a strong
solution of copper sulphate into the outer jar. When the circuit is
closed, the hydrogen liberated by the action of the zinc on the acid
passes through the porous pot, and splits up the copper sulphate
into copper and sulphuric acid. In this way pure copper, instead of
hydrogen, is deposited on the copper plate, no polarization takes
place, and the current is constant.
Other cells have different combinations of metals, such as silver-
zinc, or platinum-zinc, and carbon is also largely used in place of one
metal, as in the familiar carbon-zinc Leclanché cell, used for ringing
electric bells. This cell consists of an inner porous pot containing a
carbon plate packed round with a mixture of crushed carbon and
manganese dioxide, and an outer glass jar containing a zinc rod and
a solution of sal-ammoniac. Polarization is checked by the oxygen in
the manganese dioxide, which seizes the hydrogen on its way to the
carbon plate, and combines with it. If the cell is used continuously
however this action cannot keep pace with the rate at which the
hydrogen is produced, and so the cell becomes polarized; but it soon
recovers after a short rest.
The so-called “dry” cells so much used at the present time are
not really dry at all; if they were they would give no current. They are
in fact Leclanché cells, in which the containing vessel is made of zinc
to take the place of a zinc rod; and they are dry only in the sense
that the liquid is taken up by an absorbent material, so as to form a
moist paste. Dry cells are placed inside closely fitting cardboard
tubes, and are sealed up at the top. Their chief advantage lies in
their portability, for as there is no free liquid to spill they can be
carried about and placed in any position.
We have seen that the continuance of the current from a voltaic
cell depends upon the keeping up of a difference of potential
between the plates. The force which serves to maintain this
difference is called the electro-motive force, and it is measured in
volts. The actual flow of electricity is measured in amperes. Probably
all my readers are familiar with the terms volt and ampere, but
perhaps some may not be quite clear about the distinction between
the two. When water flows along a pipe we know that it is being
forced to do so by pressure resulting from a difference of level. That
is to say, a difference of level produces a water-moving or water-
motive force; and in a similar way a difference of potential produces
an electricity-moving or electro-motive force, which is measured in
volts. If we wish to describe the rate of flow of water we state it in
gallons per second, and the rate of flow of electricity is stated in
amperes. Volts thus represent the pressure at which a current is
supplied, while the current itself is measured in amperes.
We may take this opportunity of speaking of electric resistance.
A current of water flowing through a pipe is resisted by friction
against the inner surface of the pipe; and a current of electricity
flowing through a circuit also meets with a resistance, though this is
not due to friction. In a good conductor this resistance is small, but in
a bad conductor or non-conductor it is very great. The resistance
also depends upon length and area of cross-section; so that a long
wire offers more resistance than a short one, and a thin wire more
than a thick one. Before any current can flow in a circuit the electro-
motive force must overcome the resistance, and we might say that
the volts drive the amperes through the resistance. The unit of
resistance is the ohm, and the definition of a volt is that electro-
motive force which will cause a current of one ampere to flow
through a conductor having a resistance of one ohm. These units of
measurement are named after three famous scientists, Volta,
Ampère, and Ohm.
Fig. 8.—Cells connected in Parallel.
A number of cells coupled together form a battery, and different

methods of coupling are used to get different results. In addition to
the resistance of the circuit outside the cell, the cell itself offers an
internal resistance, and part of the electro-motive force is used up in
overcoming this resistance. If we can decrease this internal
resistance we shall have a larger current at our disposal, and one
way of doing this is to increase the size of the plates. This of course
means making the cell larger, and very large cells take up a lot of
room and are troublesome to move about. We can get the same
effect however by coupling. If we connect together all the positive
terminals and all the negative terminals of several cells, that is,
copper to copper and zinc to zinc in Daniell cells, we get the same
result as if we had one very large cell. The current is much larger,
but the electro-motive force remains the same as if only one cell
were used, or in other words we have more amperes but no more
volts. This is called connecting in “parallel,” and the method is shown
in Fig. 8. On the other hand, if, as is usually the case, we want a
larger electro-motive force, we connect the positive terminal of one
cell to the negative terminal of the next, or copper to zinc all through.
In this way we add together the electro-motive forces of all the cells,
but the amount of current remains that of a single cell; that is, we get
more volts but no more amperes. This is called connecting in
“series,” and the arrangement is shown in Fig. 9. We can also
increase both volts and amperes by combining the two methods.
Fig. 9.—Cells connected in Series.
A voltaic cell gives us a considerable quantity of electricity at low

pressure, the electro-motive force of a Leclanché cell being about
1½ volts, and that of a Daniell cell about 1 volt. We may perhaps get
some idea of the electrical conditions existing during a thunderstorm
from the fact that to produce a spark one mile long through air at
ordinary pressure we should require a battery of more than a
thousand million Daniell cells. Cells such as we have described in
this chapter are called primary cells, as distinguished from
accumulators, which are called secondary cells. Some of the
practical applications of primary cells will be described in later
chapters.
Besides the voltaic cell, in which the current is produced by
chemical action, there is the thermo-electric battery, or thermopile,
which produces current directly from heat energy. About 1822
Seebeck was experimenting with voltaic pairs of metals, and he
found that a current could be produced in a complete metallic circuit
consisting of different metals joined together, by keeping these
joinings at different temperatures. Fig. 10 shows a simple
arrangement for demonstrating this effect, which is known as the
“Seebeck effect.” A slab of bismuth, BB, has placed upon it a bent
strip of copper, C. If one of the junctions of the two metals is heated
as shown, a current flows; and the same effect is produced by
cooling one of the junctions. This current continues to flow as long as
the two junctions are kept at different temperatures. In 1834 another
scientist, Peltier, discovered that if a current was passed across a
junction of two different metals, this junction was either heated or
cooled, according to the direction in which the current flowed. In Fig.
10 the current across the heated junction tends to cool the junction,
while the Bunsen burner opposes this cooling, and keeps up the
temperature. A certain amount of the heat energy is thus
transformed into electrical energy. At the other junction the current
produces a heating effect, so that some of the electrical energy is
retransformed into heat.
A thermopile consists of a
number of alternate bars or
strips of two unlike metals,
joined together as shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 11.
The arrangement is such that
the odd junctions are at one
side, and the even ones at the
other. The odd junctions are
Fig. 10.—Diagram to illustrate the Seebeck
effect.
heated, and the even ones
cooled, and a current flows
when the circuit is
completed. By using
a larger number of
junctions, and by
increasing the
difference of
temperature between
them, the voltage of
the current may be
increased. Fig. 11.—Diagram to show arrangement of two
different metals in Thermopile.
Thermopiles are
nothing like so
efficient as voltaic cells, and they are more costly. They are used to a
limited extent for purposes requiring a very small and constant
current, but for generating considerable quantities of current at high
pressure they are quite useless. The only really important practical
use of the thermopile is in the detection and measurement of very
minute differences of temperature, which are beyond the capabilities
of the ordinary thermometer. Within certain limits, the electro-motive
force of a thermopile is exactly proportionate to the difference of
temperature. The very slightest difference of temperature produces a
current, and by connecting the wires from a specially constructed
thermopile to a delicate instrument for measuring the strength of the
current, temperature differences of less than one-millionth of a
degree can be detected.
CHAPTER V
THE ACCUMULATOR
If we had two large water tanks, one of which could be emptied only
by allowing the bottom to fall completely out, and the other by means
of a narrow pipe, it is easy to see which would be the more useful to
us as a source of water supply. If both tanks were filled, then from
the first we could get only a sudden uncontrollable rush of water, but
from the other we could get a steady stream extending over a long
period, and easily controlled. The Leyden jar stores electricity, but in
yielding up its store it acts like the first tank, giving a sudden
discharge in the form of a bright spark. We cannot control the
discharge, and therefore we cannot make it do useful work for us.
For practical purposes we require a storing arrangement that will act
like the second tank, giving us a steady current of electricity for a
long period, and this we have in the accumulator or storage cell.
A current of electricity has the power of decomposing certain
liquids. If we pass a current through water, the water is split up into
its two constituent gases, hydrogen and oxygen, and this may be
shown by the apparatus seen in Fig. 12. It consists of a glass vessel
with two strips of platinum to which the current is led. The vessel
contains water to which has been added a little sulphuric acid to
increase its conducting power, and over the strips are inverted two
test-tubes filled with the acidulated water. The platinum strips, which
are called electrodes, are connected to a battery of Daniell cells.
When the current passes, the water is decomposed, and oxygen
collects at the electrode connected to the positive terminal of the
battery, and hydrogen at the other electrode. The two gases rise up
into the test-tubes and displace the water in them, and the whole
process is called the electrolysis of water. If now we disconnect the
battery and join the two electrodes by a wire, we find that a current
flows from the apparatus as from a voltaic cell, but in the opposite
direction from the original battery current.
It will be remembered that one
of the troubles with a simple voltaic
cell was polarization, caused by
the accumulation of hydrogen; and
that this weakened the current by
setting up an opposing electro-
motive force tending to produce
another current in the opposite
direction. In the present case a
similar opposing or back electro-
motive force is produced, and as
soon as the battery current is
stopped and the electrodes are
connected, we get a current in the
reverse direction, and this current Fig. 12.—Diagram showing
continues to flow until the two Electrolysis of Water.
gases have recombined, and the
electrodes have regained their
original condition. Consequently we can see that in order to
electrolyze water, our battery must have an electro-motive force
greater than that set up in opposition to it, and at least two Daniell
cells are required.
This apparatus thus may be made to serve to some extent as an
accumulator or storage cell, and it also serves to show that an
accumulator does not store up or accumulate electricity. In a voltaic
cell we have chemical energy converted into electrical energy, and
here we have first electrical energy converted into chemical energy,
and then the chemical energy converted back again into electrical
energy. This is a rough-and-ready way of putting the matter, but it is
good enough for practical purposes, and at any rate it makes it quite
clear that what an accumulator really stores up is not electricity, but
energy, which is given out in the form of electricity.
The apparatus just described is of little use as a source of
current, and the first really practical accumulator was made in 1878
by Gaston Planté. The electrodes were two strips of sheet lead
placed one upon the other, but separated by some insulating
material, and made into a roll. This roll was placed in dilute sulphuric
acid, and one strip or plate connected to the positive, and the other
to the negative terminal of the source of current. The current was
passed for a certain length of time, and then the accumulator partly
discharged; after which current was passed again, but in the reverse
direction, followed by another period of discharge. This process,
which is called forming, was continued for several days, and its
effect was to change one plate into a spongy condition, and to form a
coating of peroxide of lead on the other. When the plates were
properly formed the accumulator was ready to be fully charged and
put into use. The effect of charging was to rob one plate of its
oxygen, and to transfer this oxygen to the other plate, which thus
received an overcharge of the gas. During the discharge of the
accumulator the excess of oxygen went back to the place from which
it had been taken, and the current continued until the surfaces of
both plates were reduced to a chemically inactive state. The
accumulator could be charged and discharged over and over again
as long as the plates remained in good order.
In 1881, Faure hit upon the idea of coating the plates with a
paste of red-lead, and this greatly shortened the time of forming. At
first it was found difficult to make the paste stick to the plates, but
this trouble was got rid of by making the plates in the form of grids,
and pressing the paste into the perforations. Many further
improvements have been made from time to time, but instead of
tracing these we will go on at once to the description of a present-
day accumulator. There are now many excellent accumulators made,
but we have not space to consider more than one, and we will select
that known as the “Chloride” accumulator.
The positive plate of this accumulator is of the Planté type, but it
is not simply a casting of pure lead, but is made by a building-up
process which allows of the use of a lead-antimony mixture for the
grids. This gives greater strength, and the grids themselves are
unaffected by the chemical changes which take place during the
charging and discharging of the cell. The active material, that is the
material which undergoes chemical change, is pure lead tape coiled
up into rosettes, which are so designed that the acid can circulate
through the plates. These rosettes are driven into the perforations of
the grid by a hydraulic press, and during the process of forming they
expand and thus become very firmly fixed. The negative plate has a
frame made in two parts, which are riveted together after the
insertion of the active material, which is thus contained in a number
of small cages. The plate is covered outside with a finely perforated
sheet of lead, which prevents the active material from falling out. It is
of the utmost importance that the positive and negative plates should
be kept apart when in the cell, and in the Chloride accumulator this is
ensured by the use of a patent separator made of a thin sheet of
wood the size of the plates. Before being used the wood undergoes
a special treatment to remove all substances which might be
harmful, and it then remains unchanged either in appearance or
composition. Other insulating substances, such as glass rods or
ebonite forks, can be used as separators, but it is claimed that the
wood separator is not only more satisfactory, but that in some
unexplained way it actually helps to keep up the capacity of the cell.
The plates are placed in glass, or lead-lined wood or metal boxes,
and are suspended from above the dilute sulphuric acid with which
the cells are filled. A space is left below the plates for the sediment
which accumulates during the working of the cell.
In all but the smallest cells several pairs of plates are used, all
the positive plates being connected together and all the negative
plates. This gives the same effect as two very large plates, on the
principle of connecting in parallel, spoken of in Chapter IV. A single
cell, of whatever size, gives current at about two volts, and to get
higher voltages many cells are connected in series, as with primary
cells. The capacity is generally measured in ampere-hours. For
instance, an accumulator that will give a current of eight amperes for
one hour, or of four amperes for two hours, or one ampere for eight
hours, is said to have a capacity of eight ampere-hours.
Accumulators are usually charged from a dynamo or from the
public mains, and the electro-motive force of the charging current
must be not less than 2½ volts for each cell, in order to overcome
the back electro-motive force of the cells themselves. It is possible to
charge accumulators from primary cells, but except on a very small
scale the process is comparatively expensive. Non-polarizing cells,
such as the Daniell, must be used for this purpose.
The practical applications of accumulators are almost
innumerable, and year by year they increase. As the most important
of these are connected with the use of electricity for power and light,
it will be more convenient to speak of them in the chapters dealing
with this subject. Minor uses of accumulators will be referred to
briefly from time to time in other chapters.

Textbook The Politics of International Political Theory Reflections On The Works of Chris Brown Mathias Albert Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Textbook The Politics of International Political Theory Reflections On The Works of Chris Brown Mathias Albert Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook The Politics of International Political Theory Reflections On The Works of Chris Brown Mathias Albert Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Politics of International Political

Theory: Reflections on the Works of

Organizing Democracy: Reflections on the Rise of

Envisioning The World Mapping And Making The Global

Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics Univalent

Political Encounters: A Hermeneutic Inquiry into the

Arguing Islam after the revival of Arab politics 1st

On the Politics of Ugliness Sara Rodrigues

The Challenge of Politics An Introduction to Political

ISBN 978-3-319-93277-4 ISBN 978-3-319-93278-1 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952234

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

Cover image © Music-Images / Alamy Stock Photo

1 Introduction: The Politics of International Political

Part I Judgement, Reason, and Humanity 19

2 Dogmatic Anti-dogmatism: Learning from Chris Brown 21

3 The Politics of Judgement in International Political

4 Practical Judgement: Inconsistent—Or Incoherent? 55

5 Humanity in International Political Theory: Chris Brown

Part II War and Violence, Human Rights and Global

6 Between Sovereign Judgment and the International Rule

7 War and the ‘Brotherhood of Hooliganism’ 117

8 Emotions and Political Limitations: Working Through

9 The Politics of Human Rights 159

10 The Ethics of Brexit 181

11 Cultural Incomprehension and the Tragic Sense of Life 199

12 Chris Brown’s Liberal Conservatism, the Process

14 Postscriptum: Chris Brown, and International Political

Mathias Albert is Professor of Political Science at Bielefeld University.

Chris Brown is Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the

Nicholas Rengger is Professor of Political Theory and International

Introduction: The Politics of International

Anthony F. Lang Jr. and Mathias Albert

A. F. Lang Jr. (*)

© The Author(s) 2019 1

draw upon forms of political wisdom to critique political practice. The

This section also explores briefly his reflections on cultural pluralism, an

2 Intellectual Biography

the latter one of the most prominent postmodernist political theorists

3 Framing and Reframing IPT

his initial approach to the idea of what it means to do ‘normative’ theory.

By normative international relations theory is meant that body of work

Brown goes on to qualify this definition, noting that IR scholars have a

Some of this work is certainly valuable, but, on the whole, it is regrettable

This critique of postmodern and critical theory reveals a further impor-

One, possibly desirable, alternative to a clash of civilization is cross-cultural

This is a powerful call to those interested in international relations to

these lacunae, Brown’s understanding of IPT has shaped our

4 Liberalism and Brown

retical foundations and assumptions that drive their advocacy of human

5 Political Judgement and Pluralism

Brown, C. (2002). Sovereignty, Rights, and Justice: International Politcal Theory

Judgement, Reason, and Humanity

Dogmatic Anti-dogmatism: Learning

Had I realised then that the natural defenders of the Enlightenment

© The Author(s) 2019 21

In the previous chapters we have dealt with electricity in charged

By permission of Dick, Kerr & Co. Ltd.

1 Introduction: The Politics of International Political

Part I Judgement, Reason, and Humanity 19

2 Dogmatic Anti-dogmatism: Learning from Chris Brown 21

3 The Politics of Judgement in International Political

4 Practical Judgement: Inconsistent—Or Incoherent? 55

5 Humanity in International Political Theory: Chris Brown

Part II War and Violence, Human Rights and Global

6 Between Sovereign Judgment and the International Rule

7 War and the ‘Brotherhood of Hooliganism’ 117

8 Emotions and Political Limitations: Working Through

9 The Politics of Human Rights 159

10 The Ethics of Brexit 181

11 Cultural Incomprehension and the Tragic Sense of Life 199

12 Chris Brown’s Liberal Conservatism, the Process

14 Postscriptum: Chris Brown, and International Political