Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality of the League of Nations
| Author | Lucian M. Ashworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066110363501 |
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
17(2) 279–301
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066110363501
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
Corresponding author:
Lucian M. Ashworth, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick, Limerick,
Ireland.
Email: Luke.ashworth@ul.ie
Realism and the spirit of
1919: Halford Mackinder,
geopolitics and the reality
of the League of Nations
Lucian M. Ashworth
University of Limerick, Ireland
Abstract
Recent analyses of interwar International Relations (IR) have argued that there was
no realist–idealist debate, and that there is no evidence of a distinct idealist paradigm.
Less work has been done on realism in the interwar period. This article analyses the
thought of one particular early 20th-century realist: Halford J. Mackinder. A product of
the development of political geography, and a major influence on American strategic
studies, Mackinder is best known for his Heartland thesis, which has been interpreted
as environmental determinism. Yet, Mackinder’s realism is a complex mix of geopolitical
analysis and the influence of ideas on human action. His concepts of organizer and
idealist foreign policy ideal types pre-date Carr’s realist–utopian distinction by two
decades, while his interpretation of the realities of international politics is at odds with
Morgenthau’s realism. A closer analysis of Mackinder’s realism (1) underscores the
links between geopolitics and realist strategic studies; (2) demonstrates the diversity
of realist approaches in interwar IR; and (3) shows that it was possible to be a realist
and also suppor t the League of Nations. There are limits to Mackinder’s usefulness to
21st-century IR, but an understanding of his brand of realism is necessary for a fuller
understanding of the development of realism as a 20th-century school of thought.
Keywords
classical realism, international history, international order, International Relations, security
Man is a product of the earth’s surface. This means not merely that he is a child of the earth,
dust of her dust; but that the earth has mothered him, fed him, set him tasks, directed his
thoughts, confronted him with difficulties that have strengthened his body and sharpened his
280 European Journal of International Relations 17(2)
wits, given him his problems of navigation and irrigation, and at the same time whispered
hints for their solution. She has entered into his bone and tissue, into his mind and soul.…
History tends to repeat itself largely owing to this steady, unchanging geographic element.
(Semple, 1911: 1–2)
Introduction
The history of realism in International Relations (IR) is peppered with strange gaps in its
narrative. Every introductory IR textbook contains some form, however short, of a now
familiar family tree starting with Thucydides. But then there are those gaps. Many of the
problems with the realist genealogy is that it is a post hoc invention of a realist paradigm
that took firm root in IR during the 1950s. While this can account for the long realist
silence between, say, Thucydides and Machiavelli (a space of almost two millennia), it is
less helpful when we wish to explain gaps that are closer to hand. Although realism in IR
did not reach the status of a distinct paradigm until after World War II, it is still possible
to talk about a realist tradition of thought throughout the 20th century. This idea of a pre-
paradigmatic realist tradition of thought is central to Sean Molloy’s argument about the
diversity of realist approaches (2006).
It is the silence in the first three and a half decades of the 20th century that is the odd-
est of the gaps. It is odd in two ways: first, the gap covers most of the interwar period
when, according to the received realist history, realism was locked in a debate with ideal-
ism. Second, the period includes a number of self-styled realists, one of whom was, and
continues to be, a major influence on realist strategic studies in the United States. When
realist writers of the interwar period are referred to, the usual suspects are mentioned.
Reference is made to E.H. Carr, Georg Swartzenberger, Nicholas Spykman, Reinhold
Neibuhr or Hans Morgenthau. The problem here is that all of these people wrote in the
1930s and 1940s. The 1920s, by default, is left devoid of realists.
Part of the problem is that it is really only recently that IR has properly turned its
attention to the history of the discipline during the interwar period. The myth of the realist–
idealist debate has been attacked (Ashworth, 2002; Thies, 2002; Wilson, 1998), while the
concept of an idealist paradigm has been questioned (Ashworth, 2006; Sylvest, 2004).
The danger here, however, is that we may throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just
because there was no realist–idealist debate, and just because there was never an idealist
paradigm, does not mean that there were no realists either. If we take realism to mean not
a paradigm, but a tradition of thought that has linked human action to power struggles
that have their roots in a natural world prior to ethics and human laws, then we can iden-
tify a number of realist IR writers in the interwar period. We can also single out a few
from before the mid-1930s, including the Conservative politician F.E. Smith and the
political geographer Halford J. Mackinder.
This article will concentrate on Mackinder. The reasons for this are: (1) that Mackinder’s
writing clearly fits into the definition of realism as a mode of thought, used by Molloy;
(2) Mackinder’s work was a direct influence on the development of a realist strategic
studies after the 1940s, and has been regularly used and quoted in strategic studies circles
throughout the last six decades; (3) Mackinder’s concept of organizers and idealists is an
earlier version of Carr’s later realist–utopian dichotomy; and (4) while Mackinder’s
To continue reading
Request your trial