Notes Introduction: The Ideological Discourse of Anarchy 1 . J o s e p h C o n r a d , The secret agent (London: Penguin, 2007 ), pp. 64–65. First published in 1907. 2 . This is particularly true of theories of global democracy. See, inter alia, David Held, Democracy and the global order (Cambridge: Polity, 1995 ), D. Archibugi and David Held (eds.) Cosmopolitan democracy: an agenda for a new world order (Cambridge: Polity, 1995 ), and D. Archibugi, David Held, and M. Kuhler (eds.) Re-imagining political community: studies in cosmopolitan democ- racy (Cambridge: Polity, 1998 ). See also, Onora O’Neill, “Agents of justice,” Metaphilosophy, Vol. 32, 2001, pp. 180–196. 3 . M a r t i n W i g h t , Power politics (London: Oxford University Press & Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1946 ), p. 113. 4 . R . P . W o l f f , In defence of anarchy (New York: Harper & Row, 1970 ), Robert Nozick, Anarchy, state and utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974 ). For Rothbard, see, inter alia, Murray N. Rothbard, For a new liberty: the libertarian manifesto , 2nd edition (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006), first pub- lished in 1973. Anarchist academic literature, which illustrates this social praxis approach, has become increasingly voluminous in recent years. See, inter alia, Randall Amster, Abraham DeLeon, Luis A. Ferrnandez, Anthony J. Nocella, II, and Deric Shannon (eds.) Contemporary anarchist studies: an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy ( Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), Benjamin Franks and Matthew Wilson (eds.) Anarchism and moral philosophy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 ), and Saul Newman, “Editorial: the libertarian impulse,” Journal of Political Ideologies , Vol. 16, No. 3 ( 2011 ), pp. 239–244. 5 . See, for example, Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore, Jr., and Herbert Marcuse, A critique of pure tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969 ). 6 . Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713). See Lawrence E. Klein, Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness: moral discourse and cultural politics in early eighteenth-century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 ). For a biography of Shaftesbury, see Robert Voitle, The third 212 ● Notes earl of Shaftesbury, 1671–1713 (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1984 ). 7 . Stanley Hoffmann, “Foreword: revisiting ‘the anarchical society’” in Hedley Bull, The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics , 2nd edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995 ), p. viii. See also Kenneth Waltz, Theory of international politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979 ). 8 . W i g h t , Power politics , p. 34. 9 . Ibid., p. 34. See also Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson, The European anarchy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1916 ) and The international anarchy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1926 ). For an insightful recent study of the significance of this for- mative historical period for wider debates on British liberal internationalism, international anarchy, and the intellectual origins of IR as an academic disci- pline, see Casper Sylvest, British liberal internationalism, 1880–1930: making progress? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009 ). 10 . The italics are mine. Martin Wight, “Why is there no international the- ory?” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.) Diplomatic investiga- tions: essays in the theory of international politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966 ), p. 31. 11 . Among the more influential are John Ruggie’s “Continuity and transforma- tion in the world polity: toward a neo-realist synthesis,” World Politics , Vol. 35, No. 2, January 1983 , pp. 261–285 and Richard Ashley’s “Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problematique,” Millennium , Vol. 17, No.2, 1998 , pp. 227–262. See also Helen Milner, “The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique,” Review of International Studies , Vol. 17, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 67–85. 12 . The cognate discipline of peace research had been a minor exception to this absence within IR theory. In what represented a rare foray into the interna- tional sphere for anarchist political theory, Richard Falk acknowledged that “surprisingly little attention has been given to anarchism as a perspective relevant to global reform.” Richard Falk, “Anarchism and world order” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.) Anarchism NOMOS XIX (New York: New York University Press, 1978 ), p. 63. See also Thomas G. Weiss, “The tradition of philosophical anarchism and future directions in world policy,” Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 12, 1975 , pp. 1–17 and Scott Turner, “Global civil society, anarchy and government: assessing an emerging para- digm,” Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998, pp. 25–42. For recent scholarship that aims explicitly to contribute to IR debates, see, inter alia, Alex Prichard, “Justice, order and anarchy: the international political theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,” Millennium , Vol. 35, No. 3, 2007, pp. 623–645, his “What can the absence of anarchism tell us about the history and purpose of International Relations?” Review of International Studies , Vol. 37, No. 4, 2011, pp. 1647–1669, and the essays in “Forum: anarchism and world poli- tics,” Millennium , Vol. 39, No. 2, 2010 , pp. 373–501. 13 . Contextualism, understood as a distinct methodological approach to the his- tory political thought, which has emphasized the reconstruction of languages Notes ● 213 of political discourse, has come to be associated with what has been termed the “Cambridge School.” It has its origins primarily in the work of Cambridge scholars Quentin Skinner and J. G. A. Pocock, as well as John Dunn and Peter Laslett. For a classic methodological essay on the contextual approach, see Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas,” History and Theory , Vol. 8, 1969 , pp. 3–53. See also Quentin Skinner, Visions of politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 ), Quentin Skinner, The foundations of modern political thought , vols. 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978 ), and J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, language and time: essays on political thought and history (London: Methuen, 1972 ). For an alternative approach and critique of Skinner and Pocock, see Mark Bevir, The logic of the history of ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 ). For a useful, though not up-to-date, critique and survey of Skinner that includes five of his original essays and an extensive reply by him, see James Tully (ed.) Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989 ). For contextualism in IR, see Duncan Bell, “Language, legitimacy, and the project of critique,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , Vol. 27, No. 3, 2002 , pp. 327–350. 14 . William Godwin (1756–1836). William Godwin, An enquiry concerning polit- ical justice and its influence on virtue and happiness in Mark Philp (ed.) Political and philosophical writings, vol. 1 (London: Pickering and Chatto, 1993 ) and ibid., vol. 2 : Political justice: variants . Hereafter, Political justice . The later edi- tions (1796, 1798) were retitled An enquiry concerning political justice and its influence on morals and happiness. 15 . Holcroft and Godwin were already good friends by this time. It should also be noted that although known to us today as notable radicals, both Thelwall and Wollstonecraft were not so well-known at the time of the original publication of Political justice in 1793. In this respect, in the early 1790s, Godwin’s influ- ence on John Horne Tooke (1736–1812), for example, would have contributed more to his initial notoriety. 1 6 . S e e N i c h o l a s R o e , Wordsworth and Coleridge: the radical years (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 ). As I discuss in Chapter 5 , which focuses on Godwin’s international thought, Coleridge also supplied Godwin with critical remarks on Godwin’s only Orientalist play , Abbas, King of Persia . 1 7 . S e e G o d w i n ’ s Thoughts occasioned by the perusal of Dr Parr’s Spital sermon, preached at Christ Church April 15 1800: being a reply to the attacks of Dr Parr, Mr Mackintosh, the author of An essay on population, and others (1801) and Of population: an enquiry concerning the power of increase in the numbers of mankind, being an answer to Mr Malthus’s essay on that subject (1820) in Mark Philp (ed.) Political and philosophical writings of William Godwin, vol. 2: politi- cal writings ii (London: William Pickering, 1993 ). Malthus’s original essay, published in 1798, was in part a critique of Godwin’s thesis of human perfect- ibility in Political justice and was entitled, An essay on the principle of population as it affects the future improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet and other writers . 214 ● Notes 18 . The term, anarchism, emerged in common usage only in the nineteenth cen- tury. Godwin would not, therefore, at the time of writing Political justice, have described himself explicitly as a conscious proponent of anarchism despite the work being subsequently widely regarded as a founding tract of modern anar- chist thought. 19 . Gregory Claeys, “From virtue to benevolent politeness: Godwin and Godwinism revisited” in Gordon J. Schochet (ed.) Empires and revolutions (Washington, DC: Folger Institute, 1993 ), p. 187 20 . Ibid., p. 187. For a reading of Godwin as elitist and conservative, see Isaac Kramnick, “On anarchism and the real world: William Godwin and radical England,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 66, 1972, pp. 114–128. 21 . Mark Philp has challenged the more conventional view, arguing that Godwin’s ethics can be described, more accurately, as a form of nonconsequentialist per- fectionism. See Philp, Godwin’s Political justice . As with anarchism, the term utilitarian became commonly used to denote a particular approach to ethics only in the nineteenth century. 22 . François de Salignac de la Mothe Fénelon (1651–1715), Archbishop of Cambrai, published his Télémaque in 1699. 2 3 . G o d w i n , Political justice, Book II, Chapter 2 .