Politics Among Nations by Han Morgenthau

A Reality Theory of International Politics “The world, imperfect as it is from the rational point of view, is the result of forces inherent in human nature. To improve the world one must work with those forces, not against them.” Six Principles of political realism

1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have roots in human nature. Human nature… has not changed. For realism, theory consists in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason. What is the rational statesman, acting under circumstances, likely to choose out of given choices?
2. Concept of interest defined in terms of power.
3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category that is universally valid. Max Weber “Interests (material and ideal), not ideas, dominate directly the actions of men. Yet the “images of the world” created by these ideas have very often served as switches determining the tracks on which the dynamism of interests kept actions moving” Power compromises anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. “Thus power covers all social relationships that serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another.”
4. Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself “Fiat Justitia pereat mundus” (let justice be done, even if the world perish” but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. States prioritise successful political action over morals. Lincoln given as an example.
5. Political realism does not identify moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe… nations have a tendency to clothe their actions aspirations in moral purposes of the universe.

J Samuel Barkin and Constructivist Realism
Constructivism traditionally seen by academics, textbooks, etc. as being in opposition to realism. “TO claim that constructivism is an IR paradigm in the way that realism or liberalism is misleading the the tendency to do so intextbooks is rarely mirrored in the scholarly literature. Constructivism in scholarly literature identified as an ontology, epistemology or methodology, distinct from materialism or rationalism. Recent academics, Krasner/Keohane, identified rationalism-constructivism as the main IR contemporary debate.

Barkin believes arguments of realists and constructivists separating eachother are not upheld under scrutiny. “An examination of constructivist epistemology and classical realist theory suggests that they are, in fact, compatible; not of course that good constructivism is necessarily realist but that constructivist research is as compatible with a realist worldview as with any other”

“Constructivism is the easier of the two terms to define inclusively. Most (possibly all) self-described constructivists would agree that the defining eature of this approach is a focus on the social construction of international politics. Constructivists see the facts of international politics as not reflective of an objective, material reality but an intersubjective, or social, reality. In other words, what actors do in international relations, the interests they hold, and the structures within which they operate are defined by social norms and ideas rather than by objective or material conditions.”

Divides into those that argue an identifiable reality exists out there and can be accessed through empirical research; the other contends we can never know for sure if what we observe really exists independently of our observation of it and, therefore, no true reality exists for empirical research to find. These two epistemologies are known variously as “neoclassical” and “postmodernist” constructivism. Wendt calls them thin and thick constructivism. “The case for a realist constructivism will be made in this essay by focusing on the neoclassical variant of constructivism because it is the more difficult case to make. Postmodern constructivism is generally more accepting o fthe centrality of power in politics, and power, as is argued below, is the core concept of realism. The postmodernist response, that realism is inherently foundationalist, will be addressed later in this section and in the next.”

Hans Morgenthau “defined political science as the social science concerned with power. If we were to study some element of international relations that did not revolve around power, we would be studying international economics, or international law, or international sociology rather than international politics. In taking this stance, Morgenthau was not arguing that international law, economics or sociology are irrelevant. What he was saying, however, is that, in the international domain, politics defined as power is important and merits study in its own right.”

[Compared to the more lay definition of politics as the manner in which a society governs itself, putting this in the international context, politics is indeed important to study]

“Many contemporary definitions of realism assume that the state is the central actor in international politics. For early realists, this premise was more a matter of observation than of deduction. The major political events during the first half of the twentieth century were the two world wars, and these wars were fought by and between states. States were the organizations in international politics with power… E.H. Carr (1964:224-35) concluded that though states were currently the locus of power in global politics, they need not necessarily remain the central actor. Since then, however, states have almost by habit among realists, been presented as a definitional element of realism in their own right.”

“In realism, states matter because they have power; people and domestic institutions matter because they determine how much power states will have, and how that power will be used.”

The third concept that often appears in contemporary definitions of realism is rationality. Rational choice theory is invoked among current students of political science (Kahler, Katzenstein, Keohane and Krasner) HOWEVER “The use of rationality in the context of realist theory, however, does not invokve the assumptions of rational choice theory. Two elements concerning rationality arise in classical realist theory. -First: Scholars should be rational, ordered and “scientific” in a loose usage of that term, in our study of politics. Look for general patterns of behaviour, an admonition accepted by a wide range of social scientists. -Second: Prescriptive than predictive. Not that statespeople necessarily will behave rationally, but that in order to pursue the interests of their states they should. Morgenthau 1985: “Foreign politicy ought to be rational in view of its own moral and practical purposes”.

As seen before, Morgenthau believes psychological power is still psychological power.

“Realist logic requires certain materialist assumptions about human nature and human needs that govern the behavior of actors in international politics” “The particular assumptions ascribed to realist understanding of human nature often include the presence of insecurity and fear. It is true that realists must begin with some theory of human nature. Indeed, as Wendt has observed, all social theory must begin with some theory of human nature, even if it is that human nature is infinitely malleable.” Realist logic only requires some people to be aggressive and power maximising, so that it puts the others in a position of insecurity.” Scientific realism, a concept in the philosophy of science, bears no relationship to political realism.

Many critics of realism also conflate realism with neorealism, given the prominence of Waltz’ 1979 work.

In Scientific Man Versus Political Power, Morgenthau argues that the scientific man is incapable of solving problems of politics through the application of reason. The objective laws he talks about in 1948 Politics Among Nations is prescriptive, not predictive.

The classical realist response is that not ultimate solutions are available. “Peace is subject to the conditions of time and space and must be established and maintained by different methods and under different conditions of urgency in the every-day relations of concrete nations. The problem of international peace as such exists only for the philosopher” (Morgenthau 1946)

“SO then, is there ultimately nothing other than power that matters in international relations? Quite the contrary, for Morgenthau (1946) people ar einherently moral as well as political animals; all political acts have ethical significance.” Carr 1964 “It is an unreal kind of realism which ignores the element of morality in any world order”. In classical realism, moral theory in the absence of a recognition of power is a futile exercise as the use of power in the absence of morality is an empty exercise. “Because humans are moral beings, they will not accept power without morality”

Wendt says that the definition of IR as having power central to the theory would make it too broad that all theories would be realist. However, Moravcsik for example includes in his scientific approaches to liberal theory the idea of democratic peace. The logical conclusion of the presence of a democratic peace is that if all countries were to become democratic, there would be no more war. Universalizing the right domestic political structures, in other words, would eliminate the threat posed by military power. The idealist conclusion here is incompattible with realism.