What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010
John Hobson claims that throughout its history most international theory has been embedded within various forms of Eurocentrism. Rather than producing value-free and universalist theories of inter-state relations, international theory instead provides provincial analyses that celebrate and defend Western civilization as the subject of, and ideal normative referent in, world politics. Hobson also provides a sympathetic critique of Edward Said's conceptions of Eurocentrism and Orientalism, revealing how Eurocentrism takes different forms, which can be imperialist or anti-imperialist, and showing how these have played out in international theory since 1760. The book thus speaks to scholars of international relations and also to all those interested in understanding Eurocentrism in the disciplines of political science/political theory, political economy/international political economy, geography, cultural and literary studies, sociology and, not least, anthropology.
406 pages, Paperback
First published February 24, 2012
8 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
John M. Hobson
11 books17 followersJohn Montagu Hobson, FBA (born 27 December 1962) is a political scientist, international relations scholar and academic. Since 2005, he has been Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. In 2015, Hobson was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, the United Kingdom's national academy for the humanities and social sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 21, 2015
In The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760 – 2010, John M. Hobson does an exhaustive examination of International Relations (IR) theory. Hobson takes his audience on a journey that spans 250 years of theory in order to defend his thesis, which states that the discipline of IR suffers from a biased analysis that is centered on European doctrines and norms; he calls this bias a Eurocentric conception of world politics. His analysis is a qualitative data analysis that examines theories including Scientific Racism, Eugenics, Imperialism, Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and more, through historical perspective. Though his analysis is very detailed, it is at times too predictably focused on defending his main thesis instead of copiously attempting to seek alternative explanations for some of his assumptions. Though I agree with a large portion of his analysis I take issue with some of his conclusions on the state of IR.
John Hobson breaks his analysis into four periods, or quadrants, where he systematically gives historical perspective on the IR ethos of the time. These periods are: 1760 – 1914, 1914 – 1945, 1945 – 1989, and 1989 – 2010. In the first quadrant (1760 – 1914), Hobson uncovers that the scholarship in IR was concerned with using western imperialism as a civilizing tool for eastern nations. In the second period (1914 – 1945) scientific racism and the civilizing mission of the West join with the ideology of Eugenics and lead to the rise of Nazism and Fascism. In this period Hobson says that a western hyper-agency is formed while the East is granted conditional agency . The author then moves to the period of 1945 – 1989, where he asserts that scientific racism is abandoned in place of subliminal Eurocentric intolerance. Hobson claims that after having fought World War II, defeated the Nazi movement, and started the process of decolonization, the West was dealing with the “colonial- racist guilt syndrome”. He characterizes this period as being exemplified by the emergence of international financial institutions (IFI) that served as hegemonic institutions, which picked up where imperial colonization left off. The author claims that these conditionality-based institutions were just another form of a civilizing mission. While describing this phenomenon Hobson writes that “HST [hegemonic stability theory] effectively instructs the student that she can learn all she needs to know about world politics/economics simply by focusing all her attention on the actions for the Anglo Saxon hegemons.” In the final period (1989 – 2010) Hobson finds that there is a return to the ideology that was prevalent in the nineteenth century, where the West had as a mission to civilize the East in order to insure world stability. To demonstrate this, Hobson discusses the doctrine of preemptive warfare that justified the Iraq War, and the notion of Failed States that need to be saved by the West.
The analysis in this book relied heavily on qualitative analysis and historical perspective to come to its conclusions. That historical perspective helped to establish a core point about the “logic of confluence”. Hobson refutes the idea that Europe is a “self-constituting and exceptional entity.” He takes the time to analyze the historical record to emphasize that China and the Islamic Empires had a role in the creation of Europe as we know it. Hobson writes, “non-Eurocentrism focuses on the constant interaction between civilizations through the dialogical idea of the ‘logic of confluence’ whereas classical English School pluralism focuses on the exceptional rise of the West in isolation of other civilizations through the monological idiom of the Eurocentric ‘logic of immanence’.” This perspective is key when analyzing concepts such as American exceptionalism (which celebrates the agency of American individualism), and African exceptionalism (which denigrates the agency of African society as being flawed). These distinctions tend to highlight a racist flaw in perceiving differences in political outcomes as magically having to do with an innate ability that is provided by geography or culture.
Though the author did a great job of reviewing the historical record in his analysis of the first two periods of IR theory listed above, his argument falls apart when he starts his review of the last two periods which are post 1945. I wish the author had incorporated some quantitative analysis to explain some of his outcomes. His critique of Democratic Peace (DP) theory falls short in this regard. It is empirically irrefutable that democracies almost never fight wars amongst each other. This empirical fact doesn’t necessarily mean that global hegemons should dictate that other nations become liberal democracies, but it may help to explain the prevalence of DP. Whereas he frames his argument about the Eurocentric nature of this theory, one could also use data to highlight its empirical merits.
The author also assumes that it is possible to “produce a value-free analysis and universalist theory” of world politics. In my opinion, that belief is naïve and inherently flawed because by its very nature “world politics” entails a competition of viewpoints and power. Politics is defined as the process by which a person/institution can leverage power over another person/institution. By this definition world politics inherently has hierarchical spheres of influence. The authors desire for a value-free analysis is evidenced in his critique of hegemonic stability theory as being a return to a “whitewashed” form of imperialism. He states that, “indeed the whole purpose of British and American hegemony has been to uplift all states, but especially the backward (Eastern ones). Thus the principle institutions of US hegemony – the World Bank, IMF, GATT – were established to enhance economic development around the world.” There are two problems with this assertion; first, Hobson conflates the economic theory behind HST with the western conditionality that is sometimes attached to economic partnerships. HST in its purest form is not intended to be a civilizing mission, to the contrary it is rooted in the idea that economic partnerships between a global hegemon, that is willing to bear the costs of lowering global tariffs and investing in global public goods, will yield a higher return for that hegemon in the long run through the availability of new economic markets. There is nothing altruistic or civilizing about those intentions. In fact, such a theory plays into the notion that world politics is calculated around sovereign interests. Secondly, the institutions that he claims to have been created to establish global hegemony were in fact created to bring stability to financial markets and capital flows. There is an argument to be made that the goal of these institutions are now obsolete because of the collapse of the gold standard, or that the conditionality that is sometimes attached to the aid that they provide is counter productive to the goals of HST (because it makes recipient nations more responsive to donor needs instead of constituent needs, thus exacerbating authoritarianism and further marginalizing global security because of the lack of democracy). Conflating HST with western IFI conditionality reduces IR to a normative discipline instead of a descriptive discipline that analyzes the complexity of world politics as sovereign competition among nations.
Ultimately Hobson adds a lot of range to the academic discussion with this book. His thorough qualitative analysis adds perspective to the notion that the West was somehow preordained to be the global hegemon. His claim that sovereignty is not viewed as an objective and universal attribute is insightful and thought provoking. Hopefully academia will build on this insight and try to recalibrate certain notions such as Western conditionality in IFIs in order to account for Eastern sovereignty and agency. In the end, so long as there is global anarchy, power struggles will dominate international interactions between civilizations. Thus, it is incumbent on global actors to recognize this competition while acknowledging the egalitarian attributes of sovereignty.
John Hobson breaks his analysis into four periods, or quadrants, where he systematically gives historical perspective on the IR ethos of the time. These periods are: 1760 – 1914, 1914 – 1945, 1945 – 1989, and 1989 – 2010. In the first quadrant (1760 – 1914), Hobson uncovers that the scholarship in IR was concerned with using western imperialism as a civilizing tool for eastern nations. In the second period (1914 – 1945) scientific racism and the civilizing mission of the West join with the ideology of Eugenics and lead to the rise of Nazism and Fascism. In this period Hobson says that a western hyper-agency is formed while the East is granted conditional agency . The author then moves to the period of 1945 – 1989, where he asserts that scientific racism is abandoned in place of subliminal Eurocentric intolerance. Hobson claims that after having fought World War II, defeated the Nazi movement, and started the process of decolonization, the West was dealing with the “colonial- racist guilt syndrome”. He characterizes this period as being exemplified by the emergence of international financial institutions (IFI) that served as hegemonic institutions, which picked up where imperial colonization left off. The author claims that these conditionality-based institutions were just another form of a civilizing mission. While describing this phenomenon Hobson writes that “HST [hegemonic stability theory] effectively instructs the student that she can learn all she needs to know about world politics/economics simply by focusing all her attention on the actions for the Anglo Saxon hegemons.” In the final period (1989 – 2010) Hobson finds that there is a return to the ideology that was prevalent in the nineteenth century, where the West had as a mission to civilize the East in order to insure world stability. To demonstrate this, Hobson discusses the doctrine of preemptive warfare that justified the Iraq War, and the notion of Failed States that need to be saved by the West.
The analysis in this book relied heavily on qualitative analysis and historical perspective to come to its conclusions. That historical perspective helped to establish a core point about the “logic of confluence”. Hobson refutes the idea that Europe is a “self-constituting and exceptional entity.” He takes the time to analyze the historical record to emphasize that China and the Islamic Empires had a role in the creation of Europe as we know it. Hobson writes, “non-Eurocentrism focuses on the constant interaction between civilizations through the dialogical idea of the ‘logic of confluence’ whereas classical English School pluralism focuses on the exceptional rise of the West in isolation of other civilizations through the monological idiom of the Eurocentric ‘logic of immanence’.” This perspective is key when analyzing concepts such as American exceptionalism (which celebrates the agency of American individualism), and African exceptionalism (which denigrates the agency of African society as being flawed). These distinctions tend to highlight a racist flaw in perceiving differences in political outcomes as magically having to do with an innate ability that is provided by geography or culture.
Though the author did a great job of reviewing the historical record in his analysis of the first two periods of IR theory listed above, his argument falls apart when he starts his review of the last two periods which are post 1945. I wish the author had incorporated some quantitative analysis to explain some of his outcomes. His critique of Democratic Peace (DP) theory falls short in this regard. It is empirically irrefutable that democracies almost never fight wars amongst each other. This empirical fact doesn’t necessarily mean that global hegemons should dictate that other nations become liberal democracies, but it may help to explain the prevalence of DP. Whereas he frames his argument about the Eurocentric nature of this theory, one could also use data to highlight its empirical merits.
The author also assumes that it is possible to “produce a value-free analysis and universalist theory” of world politics. In my opinion, that belief is naïve and inherently flawed because by its very nature “world politics” entails a competition of viewpoints and power. Politics is defined as the process by which a person/institution can leverage power over another person/institution. By this definition world politics inherently has hierarchical spheres of influence. The authors desire for a value-free analysis is evidenced in his critique of hegemonic stability theory as being a return to a “whitewashed” form of imperialism. He states that, “indeed the whole purpose of British and American hegemony has been to uplift all states, but especially the backward (Eastern ones). Thus the principle institutions of US hegemony – the World Bank, IMF, GATT – were established to enhance economic development around the world.” There are two problems with this assertion; first, Hobson conflates the economic theory behind HST with the western conditionality that is sometimes attached to economic partnerships. HST in its purest form is not intended to be a civilizing mission, to the contrary it is rooted in the idea that economic partnerships between a global hegemon, that is willing to bear the costs of lowering global tariffs and investing in global public goods, will yield a higher return for that hegemon in the long run through the availability of new economic markets. There is nothing altruistic or civilizing about those intentions. In fact, such a theory plays into the notion that world politics is calculated around sovereign interests. Secondly, the institutions that he claims to have been created to establish global hegemony were in fact created to bring stability to financial markets and capital flows. There is an argument to be made that the goal of these institutions are now obsolete because of the collapse of the gold standard, or that the conditionality that is sometimes attached to the aid that they provide is counter productive to the goals of HST (because it makes recipient nations more responsive to donor needs instead of constituent needs, thus exacerbating authoritarianism and further marginalizing global security because of the lack of democracy). Conflating HST with western IFI conditionality reduces IR to a normative discipline instead of a descriptive discipline that analyzes the complexity of world politics as sovereign competition among nations.
Ultimately Hobson adds a lot of range to the academic discussion with this book. His thorough qualitative analysis adds perspective to the notion that the West was somehow preordained to be the global hegemon. His claim that sovereignty is not viewed as an objective and universal attribute is insightful and thought provoking. Hopefully academia will build on this insight and try to recalibrate certain notions such as Western conditionality in IFIs in order to account for Eastern sovereignty and agency. In the end, so long as there is global anarchy, power struggles will dominate international interactions between civilizations. Thus, it is incumbent on global actors to recognize this competition while acknowledging the egalitarian attributes of sovereignty.
maybe
January 26, 2015
Highways of Empire, the first poster released by the Empire Marketing Board on New Year's Day in 1927 © 'Highways of Empire'; (TNA) CO956-537ADescription: John Hobson claims that throughout its history most international theory has been embedded within various forms of Eurocentrism. Rather than producing value-free and universalist theories of inter-state relations, international theory instead provides provincial analyses that celebrate and defend Western civilization as the subject of, and ideal normative referent in, world politics. Hobson also provides a sympathetic critique of Edward Said's conceptions of Eurocentrism and Orientalism, revealing how Eurocentrism takes different forms, which can be imperialist or anti-imperialist, and showing how these have played out in international theory since 1760. The book thus speaks to scholars of international relations and also to all those interested in understanding Eurocentrism in the disciplines of political science/political theory, political economy/international political economy, geography, cultural and literary studies, sociology and, not least, anthropology.
December 15, 2022
A good intellectual history of IR that seeks to separate Eurocentrism, Imperialism, and Racism into distinct ideologies that, while often overlapping, do not necessarily happen simultaneously. By tracing the deep roots of IR theory, this book challenges some core assumptions and axioms held today.
Namely, IR theory fails to deliver its promise of “positivist, value-free analyses and theories of world politics.” Instead, much of it defends and celebrates the Western ideal of world politics. In other words, someone can be anti-racist and anti-imperialist while remaining Eurocentric. Whether this is a problem is left to the reader to conclude.
Key Quotes:
“While Eurocentric institutionalism often echoes many of the prejudices of scientific racism and at times performs similar political tasks […] nevertheless to reduce them one to the other is problematic. Indeed it is my rejection of this conflation that comprises a key rationale of this book.”
“But to those who wish to defend or celebrate their Eurocentrism the logical conclusion is that they have little choice but to accept that IR theory can no longer be represented as positivist, objective or value-free. In which case, the key question is no longer to be or not to be a positivist' but to be or not to be Eurocentric - that is the question'.”
Namely, IR theory fails to deliver its promise of “positivist, value-free analyses and theories of world politics.” Instead, much of it defends and celebrates the Western ideal of world politics. In other words, someone can be anti-racist and anti-imperialist while remaining Eurocentric. Whether this is a problem is left to the reader to conclude.
Key Quotes:
“While Eurocentric institutionalism often echoes many of the prejudices of scientific racism and at times performs similar political tasks […] nevertheless to reduce them one to the other is problematic. Indeed it is my rejection of this conflation that comprises a key rationale of this book.”
“But to those who wish to defend or celebrate their Eurocentrism the logical conclusion is that they have little choice but to accept that IR theory can no longer be represented as positivist, objective or value-free. In which case, the key question is no longer to be or not to be a positivist' but to be or not to be Eurocentric - that is the question'.”
August 30, 2021
I highly recommend this book for those who are interested in Geopolitics and Political Theory. According to John Hobson, under the guise of democracy, human rights, and globalization, the West preaches racism, misanthropic ideology, and worldview (Even If we talking about pacifism and liberalism). He pays attention, all the models of international relations, including Realism, Marxism, Liberalism, and even Anti-imperialism of Edward Wadie Said are initially racists. It is interesting that Hobson states that European racism is subliminal and can be found everywhere - science, policy, values, customs, sport, mass media, economics. No wonder, Hobson decisively criticizes Said, Wallerstein, Huntington, Fukuyama and debunks their theories. To mention, are all severely criticized and time after time Hobson shows how all of their ideals follow and are rooted in western values, ideas, and principles. Summing up, I would like to point out the following: to Hobson, racism is a kind of western philosophy of history. After 1945 we could see the birth of a new racistic model: сivilisational.
July 22, 2020
A thorough study into just how and why our politics is framed in such a way. From what can be learned here can be applied to almost all political discourse in the West. A key text for those wishing to address the underlying imperialist and supremacist assumptions our discourse holds.
June 7, 2022
A great appraisal of all mainstream (and many heterodox) IR schools of thought that makes a convincing case of a fundamentally racist and eurocentric foundation and origins. A must-read for all students and teachers of world politics, IR, political science, or all those interested in those subjects. It does require some background knowledge of basic IR theory to fully follow everything. Best recommended for college seniors and above in IR.
May 8, 2014
Interesting and expansive critique of IR that goes back at least two centuries to show the eurocentrism that is part and parcel of almost all strands of IR. He distinguishes between imperialist and anti-imperialist eurocentrism although from a postcolonial perspective (as he indeed pouts out) the distinction between the two is minute because even what he calls anti imperialist eurocentrism is seen as invasive enough to be seen as imperialist. However this comes down to the definition one uses of imperialism.
He does a very good job of showing the eurocentrism underpinning many Marxist and Gramscian approaches as well, although many of his arguments hinge on the way he defines certain terms vs the way the scholars he critiques would.
Definitely recommended.
He does a very good job of showing the eurocentrism underpinning many Marxist and Gramscian approaches as well, although many of his arguments hinge on the way he defines certain terms vs the way the scholars he critiques would.
Definitely recommended.
Want to read
December 23, 2015Debe estar bueno, es del bisnieto de John Atkinson Hobson .
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews