This volume draws together some of the key works of Nicholas Rengger, focusing on the theme of the 'anti-Pelagian imagination' in political theory and international relations.
Rengger frames the collection with a detailed introduction that sketches out this 'imagination', its origins and character, and puts the chapters that follow into context with the work of other theorists, including Bull, Connolly, Gray, Strauss, Elshtain and Kant. The volume concludes with an epilogue contrasting two different ways of reading this sensibility and offering reasons for supposing one is preferable to the other.
Updating and expanding on ideas from work over the course of the last sixteen years, this collection will be of great interest to students and scholars of international relations theory, political thought and political philosophy.
'This wide ranging and learned work will establish Nicholas Rengger as one of the most impressive writers on international relations today.' - Steven B. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science, Yale University, USA
'In open and engaging prose, Rengger offers a thorough-going study of some of the most important books that have shaped the debate on political theory and international relations. It displays a formidable intellectual grasp and the kind of moral conviction rarely found in today's academic discourse. It is a striking and sometimes dazzling commentary on what the author calls 'modern anti-Pelagianism', a lens through he looks at how writers as diverse as John Gray and Jean Bethke Elshtein have interrogated the troubles and discontents of our day.' - Christopher Coker, Professor, London School of Economics, UK
'International theory has needed regular jolts of history and philosophy to sustain its vitality: by proposing a new typology of "anti-Pelagian" thought, Nicholas Rengger has given the field another welcome shot in the arm. His wide-ranging collection of essays has something for almost everyone; they will not all agree with the argument, but he does provide substantial material for productive debate.' - David Armitage, Harvard University, USA