1 PEACEFUL CHANGE OR WAR? 51Drummond, the latter being Joseph Avenol’s predecessor as secretary
general of the LON. Manning stated that he agreed with those who
maintained that the teaching of international relations should be ‘pos-
itive and not normative’ and drew a contrast between a social scientific
approach towards the subject and a philosophical approach, identifying
himself with the former and Zimmern with the latter. Manning argued
that as social scientists, teachers of international relations should have as
their guiding principle the exposure of the truth and that they should
not indulge in political opportunism or preaching.^160
In his report to the administrative meeting of the Madrid confer-
ence, Zimmern noted that although the discussion of university teach-
ing of international relations was too detailed to give a wholly satisfying
account of it, certain particular notions were apparent in a large num-
ber of discourses: ‘the feeling that the problem of the methodology of the
social sciences’ had a great bearing on the discussion; the ‘necessity of a
scientific preparation’ for the study of international relations; and the
‘importance attached to analysis and interpretation as opposed to ‘sim-
ple description.’^161 In this context, Manning stated that although he
thought it preferable that teaching of international relations should be
positive and not normative, he had to protest against the charge levelled
at him by Zimmern that he neglected the philosophical aspects of the
subjet on the ground that it was inexact. Having noted that Zimmern
(^160) Ibid., 12, 17, and Manning, ‘Observations sur l’enseignement universitaire des rela-
tions internationales,’ 55.
(^161) ‘Séance administrative; Rapport de Sir Alfred Zimmern,’ Intellectual Coopération, nos.
68–69 (1936): 24–5, 24, and Jacques Lambert, ‘Organisation d’enseignement des relations
internationales,’ Intellectual Coopération, nos. 68–69 (1936): 45–6, 46. Stanley Hartnoll
Bailey, a lecturer in international relations at the LSE, was the author of International
Studies in Great Britain, a book which was the outcome of a survey organised by
the BCCIS in response to a resolution of the third annual session of the Conference of
Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations at Copenhagen in 1931. This
resolution asked ‘for the study of educational activities carried on by the Institutions rep-
resented, in so far as they deal with international affairs and with the League of Nations.’
S. H. Bailey, International Studies in Great Britain (London: Oxford University Press,
1933), xi. Bailey stated at the Madrid conference during the discussion of the organisation
of instruction in international relations that it would be a ‘error to envisage the question
[of whether the study of International relations is a descriptive or interpretative science]
from a point of view too rigorously materialist. The climate is an element of which it is
always necessary to hold account and in the social milieu the climate, formed of opinions
and ideas, evolves also.’ Intellectual Coopération (c), nos. 68–69 (1936), 20.