Is E.H. Carr's reputation as a Realist deserved?

Authors Avatar

Ross Lucas                             IR 200 Essay             

Q: Is E.H. Carr’s reputation as a Realist deserved?

Traditionally Carr is seen a political realist.  Thus his work emphasises power, the role of the state, and the structure of the international system.  However Carr also advocated radical social, economic and foreign policy reform that overlaps with Liberal and Marxist ideology.  Indeed in Carr’s major international relations work, The Twenty Years Crises, he referred to it as ‘not exactly a Marxist work, but strongly impregnated with Marxist ways of thinking’.  Therefore although Carr may have certain realist foundations, there is undoubtedly more breadth to his thinking than a rigid classification of ‘realist’ would suggest.  This essay will examine Carr the realist, compare this to his other reputations as a Marxist, a functionalist, and even a utopian, and assess whether Carr should have a more representative depiction.

It must be established that there is no ‘one’ realism that can be accurately used to describe the beliefs of all thinkers attributed the classification of a realist.  Although we may group Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Waltz, Morganthau and Carr as realists, it is never assumed they subscribe to the same branch of realism: substantial differences are expected.  However realism as a theory has become increasingly associated with the North American realism of Hans Morgenthau, established during the tense cold war period.  Yet realism is more dynamic and varied than is often realised.  Therefore, when assessing Carr’s credentials as a realist, it must be remembered that realism is open to interpretation.    Thus we will take realism as an approach to political practice: distinct in its fundamental meaning yet flexible in its interpretation.

Part of the reason Carr is viewed as a realist is because of his scathing attack on the utopian community.  Carr argued that such thinkers profoundly misread the facts of history and misinterpreted the nature of international relations.  They fail to recognise the role of power and overstate the importance of public opinion, law and morality.  Carr argued that the correct starting point is the opposite one: we should assume that there are profound conflicts of interests both between countries and between people.  Some countries and some people are better off than others.  They will attempt to defend and preserve their privileged position.  The have-nots will try and change the situation.  International relations as he sees it is about the struggle between these conflicting interests. Therefore power is more important than cooperation.  However he contradicts this very principle by arguing that Britain can preserve its power through cooperation.  The utopian Carr and the realist Carr are therefore arguing from two different perspectives.

Join now!

To assess Carr’s credentials as a realist we must establish the foundations of his realist beliefs.   The view J. D. B. Miller had of Carr and the one that is portrayed in textbooks is of a traditional realist.  However in his writings Carr draws from a variety of thinkers who would not usually be associated with a realist.  Naturally Machiavelli is an influential figure, whom Carr regarded as 'the first important political realist', setting the ‘foundation-stones of the realist philosophy.'   Carr’s realism is most evident in his attempts to maintain and rebuild Britain as a superpower.  He believed ...

This is a preview of the whole essay