Abstract
In the previous two chapters, James Mayall and Mervyn Frost rehearse a debate which (they tell us) began over dinner at the International Studies Association (ISA) annual convention in Chicago in 2001. The substance of the debate was initiated by Mayall’s claim (as reported by Frost) that Frosts ‘constitutive’ approach to international political theory was ‘too progressive, optimistic and teleological’.1 Frost’s response is to investigate how we might understand tragedy and suggest that, of course, we should be aware that the possibility of tragedy always lurks in the undergrowth of international relations, but that the awareness of this possibility ‘can help us identify ethical problems and may help us understand certain key features of these problems’. He chides Mayall with allowing his sense of tragedy to lead him to oppose progress and efforts to improve the quality of international life.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. Mayall (2000) World Politics: Progress and its Limits ( Cambridge: Polity Press).
This phrase is, of course, Martin Wight’s. See his essay ‘Why is there no International Theory?’ in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds) (1966) Diplomatic Investigations (London: George Allen and Unwin).
For excellent illustrations of just how diverse readings of realism can be, see M. J. Smith (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger ( Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press);
J. Rosenthal (1992) Righteous Realists: Responsible Power in the Nuclear Age ( Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press);
A. J. H. Murray (1997) Reconsidering Realism: Between Cosmopolitan Ethics and Power Politics ( Edinburgh: Keele University Press);
R. N. Berki (1981) On Political Realism ( London: Dent);
and M. Williams (2004) The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Although its overall subject is much wider, the two final chapters of Thomas Pangle and Peter Ahrensdorf (1999) Justice among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace ( Kansas: University of Kansas Press)–on Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz–are also very good.
R. N. Lebow (2003) The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), on which more in a moment, and J. Mearsheimer (2002) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics ( New York: Norton).
H. J. Morgenthau (1946) Scientific Man versus Power Politics ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
See the essays gathered together in H. J. Morgenthau (19 70) Truth and Power: Essays from a decade 1960–1970 (New York: Praeger).
See C. Frei (2001) Hans J Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography ( Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press).
Frei (2001) Hans J Morgenthau, pp. 190–4; Smith (1986) Realist Thought, Chapter 6; Rosenthal (1992) Righteous Realists. See also Chapter 2 of M. Rologas (2001) Hans Morgenthau: Intellectual in the Political Sphere ( Ph.D. thesis, St Andrews).
G. Steiner (1961) The Death of Tragedy (London: Faber).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Nicholas Rengger
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rengger, N. (2012). Tragedy or Scepticism? Defending the Anti-Pelagian Mind in World Politics. In: Erskine, T., Lebow, R.N. (eds) Tragedy and International Relations. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230390331_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230390331_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31493-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-39033-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)