Unlearning modernity: A realist method for critical international relations?
| Author | Felix Rösch |
| Published date | 01 February 2017 |
| Date | 01 February 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1755088216671535 |
Journal of International Political Theory
2017, Vol. 13(1) 81 –99
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088216671535
ipt.sagepub.com
Unlearning modernity:
A realist method for critical
international relations?
Felix Rösch
Coventry University, UK
Abstract
Recent re-readings of classical realism in International Relations have demonstrated
that in their critique of modernity, mid-twentieth century realists put their focus on the
development of a (self)critical and sceptical epistemology, a focus that often has been
of little concern to other International Relations theories. So far, however, this debate
on classical realism has not further elaborated realist methodologies, although this has
the potential to make the current theoretical debate more accessible for empirical
investigations. To this end, this article argues that mid-twentieth century realists
pursued a method of unlearning. Unlearning is being understood as the critique and
moving beyond the modern imaginary which preconditions everyday knowledge and
intellectual thought in a dehumanizing way through a learning process based upon the
study of classical texts. Examining the work of Hans Morgenthau, and the evocative
if generally under-appreciated writings of the Japanese thinker Maruyama Masao, the
article argues that unlearning is an important part of critical realist thinking.
Keywords
Classical realism, Hans J Morgenthau, International Relations theory, Japanese political
thought, Maruyama Masao, unlearning
Since the publication of the English translation of Christoph Frei’s (2001) biography of
Hans Morgenthau, classical realism has experienced a revival in International Relations
(IR). Common textbook-knowledge has been challenged by demonstrating that realism
and neo-realism stem from different intellectual backgrounds and pursue different
Corresponding author:
Felix Rösch, School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK.
Email: felix.roesch@coventry.ac.uk
671535IPT0010.1177/1755088216671535Journal of International Political TheoryRösch
research-article2016
Article
82 Journal of International Political Theory 13(1)
political agenda, as expounded in Michael Williams’ (2005) wilful, Brent Steele’s (2007)
reflexive, Seán Molloy’s (2010) rhizomatic, and William Scheuerman’s (2011) progres-
sive readings of realism. Classical realism cannot be understood as a theory in a grand,
universalistic sense because it lacks the rigid ontological premises to construct such a
theory. However, classical realists stand for a revival of a democratic citizenship in
global public spheres through the promotion of scepticism, (self)criticality and intellec-
tual humility (Beardsworth, 2011; Scheuerman, 2011; for the case of the United States,
see Tjalve and Williams, 2015a).
In critically reflecting on dehumanization caused by modernity and the subsequent
depolitization in democracies, well-known realists like Morgenthau, and important if
under-appreciated figures like the Japanese thinker Maruyama Masao1 aimed to refocus
politics, both academically and practically, on its ‘human essence’ (Hom and Steele,
2010: 272; Karube, 2008: 84). In doing so, they pursued similar ambitions as critical
theorists because they challenged the rationalist reduction of individuals and communi-
ties that still characterizes much of current American IR-scholarship, for omitting emo-
tional and non-rational components which profoundly influence political actions. It is
only recently that IR-scholarship (cf. Molloy, 2013; Ross, 2013; Solomon, 2012; Troy,
2015) has returned to this aspect of realist thought and gradually its potential to enrich
contemporary theorizing is being acknowledged.
Common to all recent readings of realism is the argument that their critique of moder-
nity stems from an affinity with critical theory and it provides an important addition to
contemporary IR-theorizing because it focuses on epistemological questions of scepti-
cism and self-reflexivity, rather than operating from a predetermined ontology (cf.
Wendt, 1999: 90). So far, however, little effort has been made within this debate to fur-
ther elaborate realist methodologies. This lacuna is unfortunate because, as much as real-
ist epistemologies help to rejuvenate contemporary IR-discourses, a reconsideration of
their methodologies might lift the current debate from its theoretical vantage point and
make realism more accessible for empirical investigations. To this end, this article argues
that realism promotes an approach to (international) political theory that stresses the
importance of unlearning. Realist unlearning is to be understood as an attempt to re-
establish the human as a wilful actor in the current world political order and as a creator
of life-worlds. Realist unlearning is, therefore, not the attempt to forget, but a learning
process to free oneself from the modern imaginary that preconditions everyday knowl-
edge and intellectual thought by opening up new spaces to imagine a different reality. To
make this case, the article engages with the work of two realist scholars from disparate
cultures, with the goal of showing that unlearning should not be understood as a ‘Western’
knowledge-imposition on a partly ‘Non-Western’ context, but reflects similar discus-
sions in Japanese humanities (Ōe, 2012: 45–49). Unlearning, therefore, is a method com-
mon to realist thought globally, and represents realism’s ambition to criticize and
transcend modernity by returning to classical, pre-modern thought. In the case of
Morgenthau, this ambition can be seen in his continuing interest in Aristotle (Lang,
2007). Even more revealing is the lesser-known case of Maruyama, who argued that
‘American political thought projects its future as an extension of the present’, whereas
Maruyama’s political thought ‘projects its future as an extension of the negation of the
present society’ (Yabuno Yūzō in Ehara, 2005: 64).2
To continue reading
Request your trial