Session 5: Science of International Politics

In his book, Twenty Year’s Crisis, E.H. Carr discusses the transformation with regards to the understanding of international politics post World War I; war was not limited to soldiers and international politics could not be left in the hands of diplomats. The agitation against secret treaties, considered to be a cause of war informed the masses and resulted in popularization of international politics. Carr describes that the science of international politics emerged due to a popular demand; created to serve a purpose following the pattern of other sciences, followed by a criticism of Utopianism.

“A science shouldn't be named so unless it has acquired sufficient humility that it doesn’t consider itself omnipotent and to distinguish the analysis of what is from aspiration about what should be.”

This distinction according to him cannot ever be absolute in political science, science of what ought to be. The distinction between immature and mature thought is the distinction between utopianism and realism, where the former is categorized by purposiveness and wishful thinking and the latter, combines purpose with observation. He criticizes the science of international politics to be utopian where wishing triumphs thinking and generalization reigns over observation. There is a lack of critical analysis of the prevailing facts. The breakaway from wishful thinking followed by the acceptance of facts and analysis of their causes and consequences ends the utopian period and represents realism.

His conclusion takes into account the two facets of political science, both utopia and realism. In order to interpret and analyze the real world scenarios, realism alone will be insufficient as a school of thought. It is important to note that the strength of realist thought is dependent on the limitation of utopianism. The realist critique can only be considered sound if its analysis of realism does not seclude itself from the utopian thought.