1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910813441403321

Autore

Schmidt Brian

Titolo

International Relations and the First Great Debate [[electronic resource]]

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Hoboken, : Taylor and Francis, 2012

London : , : Routledge, , 2012

ISBN

1-136-31911-5

1-280-68237-X

9786613659316

1-136-31912-3

0-203-12011-6

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (193 p.)

Collana

New International Relations

Disciplina

327.09

327.101

Soggetti

Idealism -- History -- 20th century

International relations -- Philosophy -- History -- 20th century

Realism -- History -- 20th century

International relations - Philosophy - History - 20th century

Idealism - History - 20th century

Realism - History - 20th century

Law, Politics & Government

International Relations

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Description based upon print version of record.

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Nota di contenuto

Cover; Title; Copyright Page; Dedication; CONTENTS; CONTRIBUTORS; FOREWORD; SERIES EDITOR'S PREFACE; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS; 1 INTRODUCTION; 2 THE MYTH THE 'FIRST GREAT DEBATE'; 3 REREADING EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY IR THEORY: Idealism revisited; 4 DID THE REALIST-IDEALIST GREAT DEBATE REALLY HAPPEN? A revisionist history of International Relations; 5 C. A. W. MANNING AND THE FIRST GREAT DEBATE; 6 THE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST GREAT DEBATE; 7 MYTH, HALF-TRUTH, REALITY, OR STRATEGY? Managing disciplinary identity and the origins of the first great debate



8 WHERE ARE WE NOW IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE FIRST GREAT DEBATE?BIBLIOGRAPHY; INDEX

Sommario/riassunto

This book provides an authoritative account of the controversy about the first great debate in the field of International Relations. Of all the self-images of International Relations, none is as pervasive and enduring as the notion that a great debate pitting idealists against realists took place in the 1940s. The story of the first great debate continues to structure the contemporary identity of International Relations, yet in recent years revisionist historians have challenged the conventional wisdom that the field experienced such a debate. Drawing on expert contributors working i