How accurate isit to describe E H Carr as a Realist?

        So what exactly is realism, and how accurate can Carr be described as a realist? With regard to international relations, Booth suggests that it is ‘the view that war is inescapable in a system where sovereign states compete for power and advantage to one another’s detriment.’ It’s the ideas that power politics exists, or put in the words of the true realist, Hans J. Morgenthau ‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.’ Yet there is by no means any lack of evidence that has lead commentators to consider Carr a realist, regardless of how inaccurate that assumption might be. Charles Jones has stated that he Carr is considered ‘ as one of the most prominent classical realists of the middle of the twentieth century.’ The Twenty Years Crisis, if anything, mainly seems to be a critique of the utopian ideals that existed in the 1920s, particularly regarding the League of Nations. It has often been noted for its powerful interpretation of realist ideas. He also portrays utopianism as something youthful, which brings ideas of naivety and inexperience to mind. Realism on the other hand, is represented as a mature theory, one much more sensible and knowledgeable. There must be some reason as so why Carr is so persistently referred to as realist. It doesn’t help that the main work introduced to international relations students (The Twenty Years Crisis) is probably the least realist of all his works. It leaves too much evidence to suggest the beliefs of its author are more towards the realist argument, even if perhaps it isn’t consistently so. For example, he is a strong believer in the idea of history being a chain of cause and effect, rather than the utopian idea of imagination. He also believes that theory does not create practice but it practices theory. He also strongly suggests that politics does not derive from ethics, but the other way round, which is something utopians would criticise.

        However if Carr isn’t correctly described as a realist, and doesn’t fit well into the utopian group either, then what exactly is he? It’s rather ironic that even though Carr himself went to great lengths so as not to be considered either one or the other, the most common assumption is that he is the former. Yet to place him in such a category disregards his whole works as an entirety. For example, to counter balance what has been perceived as a realist book, (The Twenty Years Crisis), E. H. Carr wrote what could be considered a more utopian book, Conditions of Peace, which is often overlooked. He doesn’t subscribe to one particular theory of international relations, as neither seems to agree with his own particular variety. He condemns utopianism for its naivety and yet also highlights the drawbacks of realism for its sterility.  He projects the view that international relations is caught between the two ideas of realism and utopianism, and ‘they belong to two poles which can never meet’  and so it seems, does Carr’s argument. Yet although some strong statements are made, they never seem to last for very long, for even though he talks of ‘fatal dualism’ of power and morality, he also speaks of its uneasy compromise, as if its cooperation wouldn’t be impossible. His work seems to be a contradictory account of his own opposing views. It has been suggested that Carr was ‘a pragmatist, (who) took utopians and realists to task.’Furthermore, Carr himself was a self confessed propagandist. In his book, What is History, he goes to some length to explain that the importance is not particular fact, but what he considers ‘historical fiction.’To put it another way, a sort of poetic license in order to get your point across. This cannot be disregarded when looking at any work Carr has written, and to try and categorise him would disregard this important rule. Charles Jones states that ‘it’s true intentions are never disclosed’ and this is because this is exactly what Carr purposely tried to achieve. The motives behind the writing, amongst other things include the fact that he didn’t want to be deemed as a realist or a utopian. His writing is an academic text, and not a truthful diary, and must be regarded with apprehension. To read too much into it is pointless, because ultimately, we are only reading what its author wants us to.

        It’s probably most accurate to say that Carr was perhaps a bit of a realist and utopian. Or as Jones states, ‘ one of those realists with an ideal.’ He attempts to balance between the two on a very thin line. His balance is not always equal and it seems that in some perhaps misguided way, E H Carr was somewhat of a realist. Although before the ink dries on the realist stamp and he’s placed in that particular section of the library, it should be taken into account that he had his own particular brand of realism. One that doesn’t fit quite as well into the jigsaw puzzle that some would wish us to believe. He never suggests that realism is wrong, although he does state that it is psychologically unsustainable, which may go some way to explaining why he doesn’t seem to consistently portray himself as a realist. Various different labels have been placed on this influential writer, and will continue to be placed, for it is doubtful he himself knew what to consider himself as.

Bibliography

Books

E. H. Carr

The Twenty Years Crisis: An Introduction to the study of International Relations

Harper and Row, New York, (1964)

E. H. Carr

What is History?

Penguin Books, (1990)

Charles Jones

E. H. Carr and International Relations: A Duty to Lie

Cambridge University Press (1998)

Hans J. Morgenthau

Politics amongst nations: the struggle for power and peace

New York: Knopf (1965)

Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff

Contending theories of international relations

Harper and Row, New York (1990)

Articles

Ken Booth

Security in anarchy: utopian realism in theory and practice

International affairs vol. 67 (1991)

Michael Cox

Will the real E H Carr please stand up?

International affairs vol. 75 (1999)

Peter Wilson

E. H. Carr: the revolutionist’s realist

London School of economics and Political science 2000

---