Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited ANDREAS OSIANDER Humboldt University, Berlin The article presents a “revisionist” synopsis of the thinking of some important early twentieth-century “Idealist” IR writers. I contend that these writers ground their interpretations of international relations on a shared paradigm that has hitherto gone largely unrecognised. Following a critique of certain widely held views of IR Idealism, I draw attention to a number of aspects or themes in this body of writing in an attempt to establish the underlying paradigm. I argue that the authors in question were familiar with the type of thinking that later came to be called Realist, but held that industrial modernisation rendered it increasingly anachro- nistic and dangerous. The crucial difference between Idealism and Real- ism is in their respective theories of history. In order to understand Idealist IR thinking, it is essential to realise the extent to which it relies on the notion, not so much of progress (as is usually asserted) as of an inescapable, directional historical process. The orthodox self-perception of IR as an academic undertaking holds that the discipline had an initial phase in the early part of this century commonly labelled Idealist. This article presents a “revisionist” synopsis of the thinking of some important early twentieth-century IR writers usually included under the Idealist label (Norman Angell, Leonard Woolf, and Alfred Zimmern will be the authors cited most often, but other authors will also be drawn on). 1 My contention is that the Idealist writers discussed in this article ground their interpretations of international politics on a shared paradigm that has hitherto gone largely unrecognised. Indeed, from E. H. Carr onward it has been dramatically misconstrued. Following a critique of certain widely held views on Idealist IR, the article will draw attention to a number of aspects or themes in this body of writing in an attempt to establish the underlying paradigm. I will argue, first, that the authors in question were familiar with the type of thinking that later came to be called Realist, and that this must be borne in mind if their own thinking is to be understood. I will then deal with their view that the growing economic integration of the international system rendered the widely held Realist paradigm increasingly anachronistic and danger- ous. This will lead to a discussion of the importance that early twentieth-century IR authors attached to the notion, not so much of progress (as is usually asserted) as of an inescapable, directional historical process. International Studies Quarterly (1998) 42, 409–432 ©1998 International Studies Association. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK. Author’s note: I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as the editors of the International Studies Quarterly, for their help with this article. 1 The official history of the discipline starts with the endowment of the first dedicated IR professorship at the University of Wales in 1919, soon followedby further chairs elsewhere. However, it makes sense to include in the so-called Idealist phase of the discipline certain writings published before, from about 1910 onwards. The reference in this essay to “early twentieth-century IR literature” should thus be understood to cover the period 1910 to 1940.