The Theory of International Relations: Hans J. Morgenthau and His Critics Author(s): Ghazi A. R. Algosaibi Source: Background, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Feb., 1965), pp. 221-256 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3013729 . Accessed: 07/02/2011 10:58 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Background.
http://www.jstor.org
THE
THEORY
HANS
J.
Ghazi
A.
OF
MORGENTHAU R.
RELATIONS:
INTERNATIONAL AND
CRITICS
HIS
Algosaibi
School of InternationalRelations InternationalRelations The Universityof SouthernCalifornia Southern California
in the last has experienced relations study of international 'theor? a burst of activity "which is unambiguously labelled 1959, p. 33). This concern with theory is one aspect (Fox,
The decade etical' of
the
soul-searching for the engaged
been
in process last twenty
scholars
which
years. It is sign clear reflection It is
a new sophistication. acquiring who international relationists
feel
more
the crying
more model-building, quantification, on the resources of all the sciences drawing 1958,
(Boulding, It seems if
the
developments,
the
field
have
the field
that
is of
of the mood
need
"for more
more
study integrated man, and society"
of life,
theory,
p. 329).
that
present
in
this
trends
concern are
to
theory-oriented
with be
is here
theory taken as
an
will
to stay. Indeed, of future indication
increase
and
the
field
examine
insights
that
writings
in
grow
importance. It is a logical efforts theoretical about
theory
task in the
has provided.
for
in
students
light
of the
to
recent
past
theorizing
We have been theorizing all the time. The need is for us to gain greater theoretical self-awareness so that we can subject our theories to more sustained and penetrating critical analysis (Fox, 1959, p. xii).
Morgenthau's Hans scholars
Concept
of
International
is among J. Morgenthau in the field of international international
Relations
Theory
the most
influential
of American
relations.
His theory
"has
the last ten the center of the scene in this country during occupied One writer goes so far as to 1961, p. 423). years . . ." (Hoffman, of international assert that "in recent years much of the literature or not, between is and dialogue, 'Morgenthau explicit politics his critics*
." (Thompson,
1959a,
p. 222).
Few
efforts
have
been
221
THE
THEORY
HANS
J.
Ghazi
A.
OF
MORGENTHAU R.
RELATIONS:
INTERNATIONAL AND
CRITICS
HIS
Algosaibi
School of InternationalRelations InternationalRelations The Universityof SouthernCalifornia Southern California
in the last has experienced relations study of international 'theor? a burst of activity "which is unambiguously labelled 1959, p. 33). This concern with theory is one aspect (Fox,
The decade etical' of
the
soul-searching for the engaged
been
in process last twenty
scholars
which
years. It is sign clear reflection It is
a new sophistication. acquiring who international relationists
feel
more
the crying
more model-building, quantification, on the resources of all the sciences drawing 1958,
(Boulding, It seems if
the
developments,
the
field
have
the field
that
is of
of the mood
need
"for more
more
study integrated man, and society"
of life,
theory,
p. 329).
that
present
in
this
trends
concern are
to
theory-oriented
with be
is here
theory taken as
an
will
to stay. Indeed, of future indication
increase
and
the
field
examine
insights
that
writings
in
grow
importance. It is a logical efforts theoretical about
theory
task in the
has provided.
for
in
students
light
of the
to
recent
past
theorizing
We have been theorizing all the time. The need is for us to gain greater theoretical self-awareness so that we can subject our theories to more sustained and penetrating critical analysis (Fox, 1959, p. xii).
Morgenthau's Hans scholars
Concept
of
International
is among J. Morgenthau in the field of international international
Relations
Theory
the most
influential
of American
relations.
His theory
"has
the last ten the center of the scene in this country during occupied One writer goes so far as to 1961, p. 423). years . . ." (Hoffman, of international assert that "in recent years much of the literature or not, between is and dialogue, 'Morgenthau explicit politics his critics*
." (Thompson,
1959a,
p. 222).
Few
efforts
have
been
221
made
to
however.
and his critics in one place, bring together Morgenthau The present study is conceived as an effort to fill this gap.
The
all of Morgenthau's does with not concern itself paper but is focused rela? writings, only upon his theory of international commentaries tions. Three limitations follow. First, Morengthau's on world affairs and his critiques of American are foreign policy
not
considered.
as arguments?such specific of power? and the balance theoretical discussions Morgenthau's
Second,
Morgenthau's aid, alliances,
those
concerning foreign remain outside the scope. Third, of matters beyond the field of international
relations?for
his theory of ethics and his views of science?are his theory of international far as they bear upon Of
Morgenthau's and Politics
Politics
books
only
two,
Nations, Among The second study.
example, only inso-
treated
relations.
Man Scientific have proved to
vs. be
Power of
vital
to the which first appeared book, importance in three editions. in 1948, has been published its theoreti? However, remained almost the same. To facilitate cal positions for references the
reader,
the
third
the
edition,
latest,
was
the
one
the study. With purpose
to Morgenthau's respect of reference facilitating
essays caused
and the
articles, writer
of articles, previously collections Morgenthau's published The Decline cals. Of these collections, of Democratic the most valuable. Morgenthau's upon two general
concept
of
international
relations
in
employed
the to
same
employ
in periodiis Politics
theory
is based
assumptions:
relations is . first, that for theoretical purposes international identical with international politics; second, that theory of inter? national politics is but a specific instance of general theory of 1959, p. 15). politics (Morgenthau, theory
of
international
relations, As politics.
theory of international international relations, ena, less than a general sociological is
like
according
to
Morgenthau, of social phenom?
totality domestic relations,
no requires it. Any theoretical
system to explain is bound to focus system,
effort, short of general of international relations. element
could
be as numerous
as the
Theories
intellectua
specific relations
upon of international
interests
of
theoreticians.
that in adds, however, Morgenthau particular period to assume is likely one perspective importance. primary
of
222
Vol 8, No.
Background,
history,
Today most institutions and students have turned to the study of international relations because of their interest in world politics. The primacy of politics over all other interests, in fact as well as in thought, in so far as the relations among nations and areas are concerned, needs only to be mentioned to be recognized (Morgen? thau, 1962c, p. 125).
international
Consequently,
and
perspectives international The
takes of
second
also
precedence theoretical
any
relations.
politics, being and domestic theory
becomes
politics the focus
other
over
approach
to
that from belief stems Morgenthau's assumption for power, is the same in both international struggle The issues that confront general political spheres.
confront
a theory
of international
politics:
. the nature of theory of international relations and the intel? lectual and political functions theory of international relations performs and ought to perform are not in essence different from the nature of general political theory and the functions which such theories have performed since the beginning of history (Morgen? thau, 1962d, p. 77).
the environment However, takes place is different from
within
which
of
environment
the
international domestic
politics politics.
What sets international society apart from other societies is the fact that its strength?political, concentrated in its moral, social?is members, its own weakness being the reflection of that strength (Morgenthau, of
theory peculiarities of politics
the distinctive
1959, p. 23).
international
must for the account relations, then, of its subject matter. In applying the general principles to the international it must modify them to fit scene, quality
of international
politics.
that a theory Morgenthau suggests needs central concept. international,
of
politics,
domestic
or
For general theory of politics, the concept of interest defined as power serves as the central focus, while theory of international politics must be focused on the concept of the national interest (Morgenthau,
1962f,
p. 79).
makes However, Morgenthau central concept does not mean political
action.
Power
serves
as
it clear that
that
introducing power as relations control power
only criterion that
distinguishes
politics 223
from
other
outline 1959,
spheres.
of
politics,
it "provides a kind of rational Furthermore, scene" (Morgenthau, map of the political
p. 17).
Theory, standing. unconnected
according It must ". material
to Morgenthau, bring order
serve
must and
as
into
meaning 1962d,
."
(Morgenthau, the facts of experiences
mary task is "to reduce of general instances propositions
.
of under?
tool
mass
p. 72). to mere
." (Morgenthau,
1959,
Its
of pri?
specific p. 20).
to understanding, theory can also be guide an "ideal scene that It presents map of the political can show the shortest and safest road to (Morgen? given objective in as an "ideal for action," thau, 1959, p. 18). Theory, operates the following way: While
as serving for action."
. we can say that the situations in Laos, Cuba, and Berlin pro? vide American foreign policy with a limited number of rational choices. . . What theory of international relations can state is the likely consequences of choosing one alternative as over against another and the conditions under which one alternative is more likely to occur and be successful than the other (Morgenthau, 1962d, pp. 69-70).
In addition, discusses Morgenthau tions that of international theory
four
different
relations
can
practical
perform. for the decisions
func? First, of the
can provide theoretical justification of can develop coherent Second, system theory policy-makers. of foreign the actual standards conduct by whose thought policy of intellec? the function Third, theory can perform may be judged. theory
tual
conscience
which
the policy-makers of and points out their failure
reminds
policy ciples of foreign them.1 Fourth, can "prepare theory national order . . ." (Morgenthau,
the
1962d,
the sound
to comply for a new
ground
prin? with inter?
p. 75).
as warns theory against Morgenthau employing political for political action" 1962h, p. 1). Theory "blueprint (Morgenthau, elements whose is limited contingent by the very nature of politics of theoretical the possibility obviate understanding. The most formidable
difficulty facing
theoretical
inquiry into the
1To illustrate these three functions, Morgenthau (1962d, pp. 73-75) refers to his theoretician of international relations with the administrapersonal experience as trons of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. 224
Background,
Vol 8, No.
nature and ways of international politics is the ambiguity of the material with which the observer has to deal. The events he must try to understand are on the one hand, unique occurrences. On the other hand, they are similar, for they are the manifestations of sociai forces. . . But where is the line to be drawn between the similar and the unique? 1960a, p. 18). (Morgenthau, answers
Morgenthau be satisfied
with
tobecorrect"
that
a series
"we
here
of hunches 1959,
(Morgenthau,
p. 20).
this line of thought, Following endeavors "to reduce international with
a predictive cannot lead to
propositions Theory
65). have
surprises
his
knowledge
in store of
the
1960a,
(Morgenthau,
for past
only play by ear and must which may or may not turn out can
Morgenthau to relations
function" reliable
whoever and
theoretical
system
of abstract
(Morgenthau,
predictions; tries to read
from
attacks
the
signs
1962d, p. "world affairs
the of
future the
from
present"
p. 21). theory is modeled Mor? discussions, he states that inter?
relations Morgenthau's concept of international entirely after his own theory. In all his theoretical never
genthau national
loses
Thus, sight of his theory. focus should be the theoretical
politics international relations
and that national
for
study of be the central the
should
interest
in theory, theoretical
of international relations theory. Morgenthau's concept which other words, the standard any provides against should theoretical be judged. Thus, approaches inquiry from
able
which he calls Morgenthau's approach, about international relations," theorizing are
p. 65)
doomed
and
standing
to "fail
as precepts
for
"the
fashion-
presently
(Morgenthau, for theoretical
1962d, under
1962d,
p. 66).
as guides action" (Morgenthau,
both
different
an insignificant concept. part in Morgenthau's seems inconsistent. stand on prediction Furthermore, Morgenthau's in he warns against the future, he does not hesitate While reading Prediction
offering
plays
predictions. He says that
point. in world
domination
thau,
1960a, p. 363). of the world opment
Two
war
taken examples, under contemporary
or in world At another
destruction
point,
at random, conditions
or in both"
that he predicts in the immediate
of power . uncommitted the course balance
clarify "may
the
end
(Morgen? "the devel? future
will
nations will take" upon Are such statements reliable 1960a, pre? (Morgenthau, p. 352). from theory or are they intuitions? dictions Morgenthau's stemming lends to the latter that theory will not support assertion predictions largely
depend
225
conclusion?that
such
statements
are
"series
of
If
hunches."
they
not much difference between are, there is, indeed, arising judgments derived from and judgments from a theory of international relations stand on prediction, common sense. In short, Morgenthau's simple, weak
evaluated
to be and precept appears by practice characterization of international relations theory.
Theory
Morgenthau's
of
International
point
in his
Relations
"A political frame? in nothing but an empirical science inclosed in "is a contradiction writes work," (1962g, Morgenthau p. 31), the terms and a monstrosity." Indeed, every observer approaches scene with certain preconceived ideas, a certain philosophy political which
through
facts
are
viewed
and
interpreted. understand
To
understand
the philosophical then, one must theory, to It is very difficult from which the theory springs. and his differentiate between philosophy Morgenthau's political of the definitions a clue may be found in Brecht's theory. However, tries to explain words "theory" and "philosophy." "Every theory Morgenthau's framework
tries to something. Philosophy 1959, p. 15). thing . . ." (Brecht,
not
explain,
something,
but
every-
is his political realism claims that Morgenthau philosophy. word. No thinker would is not Realism, however, self-explanatory as being unrealistic. of his philosophy or theories conceive Wright (1952, p. 120) goes so far as to say, "realism" and "idealism" have functioned as propaganda terms . The terms do not, in other words, throw light on the policies, or theories which they are used to institutions, personalities, qualify. . . .
of realism, of the ambiguity aware Undoubtedly Morgenthau has tried to clarify what he means by the term. In the first chapter he writes that his theory has earned the of Politics Nations, Among name
of
realism
by virtue the with
of
its "concern
with
human
nature
as it
as they actually take processes six to discuss 1960a, p. 4). He goes further place" (Morgenthau, Since these principles are the of realism. fundamental principles essence of Morgenthau's they will be presented philosophy, political actually
is,
and
in the following (l) 226
Realism
historic
discussion. maintains
that politics
is governed
by objective
Background,
laws
Vol 8, No. 4
man moves in "by which "there the social world" are eternal; 1946, p. 220) (Morgenthau, laws no other eternal are, aside from the laws of mathematics, of ob? The existence besides these" 1946, p. 220). (Morgenthau, leads to two conclusions First, theory of jective laws of politics in virtue is not necessarily is possible. Second, "novelty politics that
stern
from
political
theory,
(2) defined
Realism
human
The
nature.
nor is old age finds
in terms
of
defect"
main
guide
1960a,
(Morgenthau, in
the
concept
of
1960a, p. 5). power (Morgenthau, act and think in terms of interest
that
actors political power. This concern
the preoccupation of political actors.
its
laws
with
with
p. 4). interest
It assumes defined
as
and power leads realism to eschew and ideological the motives preferences
interest
both
and permanent does not claim an absolute meaning (3) Realism for its concept of power 1960a, p. 8). Environment (Morgenthau, an important role in shaping the interests that determine plays to the must be adapted action. The emphasis political upon power circumstances.
changing When
the
times
[political science] incline toward a scheme of things, conceive of power to the variety of (Morgenthau,
He
Realism nation
(Morgenthau, actors pursuing Realism
(6) approach
is
is
indifferent
and the requirements
political
of the moral aspirations to identify par? the universe" moral with the laws that govern as political of all nations 1962c, p. 11). It conceives in terms of power. defined their interests, "refuses
constitutes
distinctive
contrast sharp Realism advocates
with
in
of successful
intellectual the
legalistic of autonomy
The approach. and moralistic
vis-a-vis politics of human action. While it recognizes that the "political it is that in order to understand myth, it holds politics
approaches. other spheres man"
how? He believes, to morality. but at best moral principles cannot be realized, the between tension is aware of the ever-present is not
of morality
requirements action. (5) ticular
tend to depreciate the element of power, it must stress its importance. When the times of power in the general monistic conception it must show its limitations. When the times primarily in military terms, it must call attention factors which go into the power equation. .
1962a, p. 47).
(4) The realist ever, that universal approximated.
Thus,
the
227
to free
necessary
the
to other
appropriate
of
study
from
politics
of
standards
thought
spheres.
in human nature laws originate belief that political Morgenthau's and that this nature is susceptible constitutes to theoretical inquiry the central The social theme of his political world, philosophy. to Morgenthau according (1962c, p. 7) is human nature onto the collective ..." plane
"but This
of
projection is one world
of
unceasing struggle between good and evil, reason and passion, life and death, health and sickness, peace and war?a struggle which so often ends with the victory of the forces hostile to man (Mor? genthau, 1946, p. 206). them" and of conflict interests among opposing In such 1960a, p. 4). In short, it is an evil world. (Morgenthau, we we act with reference "whenever to our fellow men, world, It is "a world
.
that
." (Morgenthau, it covers "... the actor
the
oppressed,
must
1946,
sin
of
the
murderer
evil
can be traced
p. 202).
Conflict
and
to two human
to competition the other himself, p.
192).
and
struggle
already Selfishness,
nature, and particularly Selfishness lust for power.
to human and
selfishness
traits:
leads
1946,
Guilt is so ubiquitous 1946, p. 201). and and the bystander, the oppressor . . ." (Morgenthau, and his victim
the
because
"what
or wants, too" is not completely
possesses however,
for
wants
the one
(Morgenthau, irrational:
... the typical goals of selfishness, such as food, shelter, security, and the means by which they are obtained, such as money, jobs, marriage, and the like, have an objective relation to the vital needs of the individual; their attainment offers the best chances for survival under the particular natural and social conditions under which the individual lives (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 193). Selfishness, be satisfied. man against This portant, lust for
in other
words,
It cannot, every man.
is not
therefore,
without alone
limits. explain
war
the
of
It is present
"whenever
man
in tends
to
act
with
is
of
can every
in the other, is to be found and more explanation for power. man's desire and evil: root of conflict
fact which is an "all-permeating power of human existence" essence 1962b, (Morgenthau, it has no limits and cannot be appeased selfishness,
228
demands
Its
im? The
the
very Unlike
p. 312). by concessions. regard
Background,
to other
Vol 8, No.
men"
1946,
(Morgenthau,
and
beyond any particular of constitutes the ubiquity 1946, p. 194).
evil
In Scientific Man vs. Power desire for power as an irrational however, says that Morgenthau liness "which gives the impetus
in
Politics, human
with
In his
belief
and
should
loneliness,
be
for power is a true follower
irrational
as completely
regarded
in the desire
Morgenthau
the
1962j, p. 8). Yet Morgenthau does he explain why the desire of overcom"rational" objective
and
evil.
impulse, put for less
its "innocent"
discusses
Morgenthau
In later work, impulse. it is man's effort to escape his loneto both the lust for power and the
for love . . ." (Morgenthau, longing does not label love as evil. Neither
for power ing man's
"besides for power of purpose, or other evilness human action" (Morgenthau, desire
The
p. 194). selfishness
human as an all-important "I who stated: of Hobbes and resta perpetuall in Death" ceaseth only
of all mankind
inclination generall of Power desire after
that
power, Even in his
selfishness distinction between 1947, p. 49). lust for power, ideas. Striving reflects Hobbes' Morgenthau for power, to Hobbes, may be rational as well as irrational according that "only the Hobbes 1952, p. 10). however, believed, (Strauss, irrational than which is found more frequently striving after power,
(Hobbes, and the
the rational
is to be taken as natural human striving, appetite of the irrational 1952, p. 10). Morgenthau's (Strauss, description drive for power is identical that with that of Hobbes. His statement the
man
individual's
lust
for
an object recalls Hobbes'
became
p. 193) if they world,
In politics, aims dominant
could, the of
"would power of his domination statement
to fear desire
different
the
..."
that
and obey
for
be satisfied
only
if the last
(Morgenthau, "have would
men
them"
Strauss,
1952,
1946, all the p. 10).
"is not merely with blended power of the kind but is the very essence of the action ." (Morgenthau, .
very life-blood It follows, is that "politics 1946, then, p. 195). struggle its ultimate aim may be, power power over men, and whatever ." (Morgenthau, immediate 1946, goal p. 195). intention,
writes Morengthau "Power," (1960a, p. 9), that and maintains the establishes control thing
to this According which serve that
definition, end,
from
power physical
"covers
all
violence
for
is its
"may comprise any? of man over man." social to
relationships the most subtle 229
. ." (Morgenthau, ties psychological is more narrowly defined. however,
1960a,
Political power is psychological exercise it and those over whom it is control over certain actions of the which the former exert over the 1960a, p. 29). Political cise
of
the
abdication
military Since an end
of
Political
from
the
an actuality, favor of military
in power 1960a, pp. 28-29). (Morgenthau,
power"
political
power,
relation between those who exercised. It gives the former latter through the influence latter's mind (Morgenthau,
then, must be distinguished "When violence becomes
power, violence.
p. 9).
actual
exer?
its signifies or pseudo-
aim of political action, it is always power is the immediate in itself. Nonetheless, power can be a means to other ends.
As Morgenthau
puts it,
the end-means relation is ambiguous and relative . in that whatever we call "means" in view of the end of a chain of actions is itself an end if we consider it as the final point of chain of actions. . the totality of human actions presents Actually ... itself as hierarchy of actions each of which is the end of the means for the following 1946, (Morgenthau, preceding and p. 184). The
difference
tics is derived societies
show
between
from great
domestic
the difference degree
and politics in the context
of sociai
international of
each.
poli? National
cohesion.
Cultural uniformity, external pressure, unification, technological hierarchic political organization combine to make and, above all, the national society an integrated whole set apart from other national societies. In consequence, the domestic political order is, for instance, more stable and less subject to violent change than is the international order (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 38). The
factor
that
for instability in international relations the existence states is the state itself. Without
accounts
and for stability within of the state, the struggle in itself cannot however,
for power will be on the loose. The state, of peace and order. assure the preservation of the society, the state is dependent As the compulsory organization on the society by which it was created. Thus, the reason for internal of to be found in the existence society whose stability is ultimately
intergroup processes 230
conflicts
of
sociai
are
neutralized
change
provide
by the
overriding expectation
whose loyalties, of justice, and
Baekground,
Vol. 8, No. 4
whose
forces
unorganized formity on different on the
Thus,
are
compulsion
to
able
domestic
the
plane,
for power
with
state,
within
the
aid
of
bounds:
peaceful
Society has established a network of rules of conduct and individual tutional devices for controlling power drives. rules and devices either divert individual power drives into nels where they cannot endanger society, or else they weaken or suppress them altogether (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 102). On
the
other
state
hand, on the international
rein.
The
drives
state
within
international cause the the
which its
scene.
only
(Morgenthau,
in
is no
there
these
where
but imagination 1946, p. 198).
of
individual
manifestations
power onto the
in the
People participate for the frustration are
insti? These chan? them
above the authority for power is given a free
projects
drives
society,
centralized
scene; the drive delimits manifestations
borders
it compensates state. Thus, power scene international
"not
con?
impose
groups.
the struggle
can keep
of
be? process projection of their power drives within
to but extended suppressed has the individual's lust for power in actuality as its object" the world not
to Morgenthau, seeks to keep action every political According to increase or to demonstrate To these three power, power, power. on the international three patterns, plane: correspond policies status quo, imperialism, and prestige. The policy of status quo tends toward
power
keeping power in its favor. The
power by reversing seeks to demonstrate creasing
of imperialism power relations.
power,
for
the
maintains that the Morgenthau is to be found international relations which
manifests
itself
changing
policy
existing
it.
than
rather
in one
of
the
purpose
the
seeks The
to acquire more policy of prestige
of maintaining
which force dynamic in the states* drive for three
basic
of
distribution
or in?
molds power
policies.
The clash of these policies?A trying to maintain the status quo, to an unending trying to change it at the expense of A?leads relations struggle for power which characterizes all internationa (Morgenthau,
1962i, p. 168).
is the essence of all politics. believes that interest Morgenthau On the international scene it is therefore only natural that each state in terms its national interest. of power> follow Defined should 231
national
interest
be the sole guide to foreign policy. on any other standard will inevitably encounter
based
policy
should
that argues "one that is
Morgenthau two elements:
and one
necessary,
(Morgenthau, constitute the
of
concept
national
logically required that is variable and determined
The 1952, p. 972). minimum irreducible
element
necessary concrete
the
of
the
national
and
survival of
the
interest
has
interest in
and
foreign failure.
sense
that
by circumstances" nation security of
The
element. necessary can be determined
in
for it "encompasses of the nation's the integrity situation, of its political and of its culture" institutions, territory, (Morgen? interest of the national The variable element thau, 1952, p. 973). less
to precise determination susceptible of personalities, currents opinion, public
is much cross
"all
because
sectional
the
interests,
and moral and political folkways" politics, (Morgenthau, partisan are to its determination. bear upon 1952, p. 973) brought holds that Morgenthau of "moral devoid dignity."
the To
of concept understand
examine
on
ethics.
there
and
sin.
ideas Morgenthau's from evil is no escape cannot
evil
since actions
the
evil
one position, believes Morgenthau
The
best
is to choose be escaped, "among that is the least evil" (Morgenthau,
compels international
integrated moral values.
In
society which can preserve situation, self-preservation
man
that
that
can
do,
several
possible
1946,
p. 202).
moral duty scene, a nation's its national interest. it to follow
this
must
this
the international
On lesser
one
is not
interest
national
to choose There
the is no
and realize
order
a moral
becomes
duty. In the absence of an integrated international society, the attainment of a modicum of order and the realization of a minimum of moral values are predicated upon the existence of national communities capable of preserving order and realizing moral values within the limits of their power (Morgenthau, 1.951, p. 38). Thus, What appears in the abstract to be principle contrary to morality, higher value Morgenthau designates as moral, and he assigns it than such universal principles as liberty or economic well-being for all nations (Magill, 1962, p. 7). In by states 232
and clashing of unending struggle policies what is the fate their own interests, pursuing
world
Background,
followed of
peace?
Vol. 8, No.
that peace can be preserved maintains by two devices. Morgenthau One is the balance limitation of power. The other is the normative of international and world public opin? law, international morality, ion (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 23). The
for
as carried out in the clashing policies power, of power and the status quo, leads to the balance each other. nations themselves try to defend against
struggle
of
imperialism which through
of power is not an adequate device to prethe balance However, of serve peace. Its uncertainty, by the disappearance aggravated moral consensus, leaves the balance of power restraining open to as device. question peace-maintaining has declined morality exert any substantial
International where
it cannot
The
of
destruction with
comitant
the
the
international
triumph
of
until
pressure aristocratic
nationalism
reached
it has
over
to
a point
preserve peace. was consociety
internationalism.
within a framework of Nations no longer oppose each other shared beliefs and common values. . They oppose each other now as the standard-bearers of ethical systems, each of them of national origin and each of them claiming and aspiring to provide supra? national framework of moral standards which all the other nations 1960a, p. 256). (Morgenthau, ought to accept . in the sense of force transcending public opinion, in spontaneous national and asserting reactions itself boundaries the world, does not exist. "Modern history has not recorded through an instance of government having been deterred from some foreign World
of reaction opin? spontaneous supranational public An effective world 1960a, public p. 261). (Morgenthau, common ..." society and morality (Mor? "presupposes opinion neither of which exists today. 1960a, genthau, p. 270) by the
policy ion."
law
International
is beset
by decentralization as in its enforcement.
in
its
legislative In other words,
as well functions and judicial on the international there is no central authority plane, comparable or that can create, or interpret, to the state on the domestic plane, international law can impose the law. Consequently, but impose negligible With the
restraint
both
maintenance
actual
and
upon
normative of
proposed,
the struggle and
for power.
nonnormative
devices
is the value of what peace, at keeping Morgenthau peace?
to inadequate other attempts, classifies
these
233
limitation, attempts in three categories: peace through and peace through accommodation. transformation, The
peace
through
first
collective includes disarmament, security, category and international settlement, judicial government. change, peaceful on disarmament that stems from the belief Morgenthau's position "men
do not
deem
they
because
fight
it necessary
concludes, therefore, contest is power 1960a,
they
have
arms.
have
They
arms
because
He to fight" 1960a, p. 408). (Morgenthau, of the that a "mutually settlement satisfactory for
precondition
disarmament"
(Morgenthau,
p. 411).
Collective
the existence security cannot be made to work without of three factors: an overwhelming aggresagainst potential strength in the of security shared by the participants sors, single concept collective to and desire on the part of the participants system, subordinate
their
interest
to the common
That
good.
is to say,
Only on the assumption that the struggle for power as the moving force of international politics might subside or be superseded by higher principle can collective security have a chance for success (Morgenthau,
1960a, p. 414).
in the reality of international says that nothing Morgenthau warrants this assumption 1960a, p. 414). (Morgenthau, settlement cannot end war, because Judicial are most likely to lead to war cannot be settled 1960a, (Morgenthau, Their issue political.
p. 434). is "the
overthrow"
Those
disputes of maintenance 1960a, courts
(Morgenthau, settled by any court because the status quo.
relations
which disputes by judicial methods" are not legal; they are "the
the
status
quo vs. cannot
This issue p. 434). are committed to the defense
its be of
war by devising of peaceful at forestalling schemes Attempts is possible cannot to go very far. Peaceful change change aspire of three factors: of the existence within the state because (1) the ability of public opinion to express itself freely, (2) the ability of sociai and political institutions to absorb the pressure of public opinion, and (3) the ability of the state to protect the new status quo against violent 1960a, change (Morgenthau, p. 435). With peaceful 234
those
factors
change
absent
from
are not likely
the
international
scene,
schemes
to succeed. Baekground,
Vol. 8, No.
of
International
to the does not provide the answer government of peace. For international to be operative, government should the great powers characterize the relations among
problem
harmony which are show
for directing it. Yet responsible this harmony is hard to achieve.
that
historical
All
experiences at inter? attempts
in maintaining have failed government peace. The present United cannot to do what its forerunners Nations be expected could not. national
the
Like
conflict between Great Britain and Russia within the Holy Alliance, like the conflict between Great Britain and France within the League of Nations, so the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union within the United Nations resolves itself into diametrically opposed standards of judgment and action, which virtually incapacitate the international organization to act at all in political matters (Morgenthau, 1960a, pp. 497-498). of transformation includes schemes through and attempts at creating world community. Necessary able as it may be, world state is unattainable. Peace
world
state
and
desir?
There is no shirking the conclusion that international peace cannot be permanent without a world state, and that a world state cannot be established under the present moral, social, and political condi? tions of the world (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 513). world
state
must
be based
on
world
which community as embodied approach,
at
in The does cultural not exist. present of world com? to the establishment does not contribute UNESCO, is a moral and political of world community "the problem munity; one" and esthetic and not an intellectual 1960a, (Morgenthau, p. 520). assistance
economic approach?i.e., the world?cannot throughout
functional
The to
people
and
help technical
technical
in
estab?
assistance and either. Economic world community lishing of international . . is likely at best to leave the problem peace where it found it . . ." (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 536). or impracticable, as inadequate the only hope rests with peace through accommodation; i.e., diplo? "can make peace more secure than it is today ..." macy. Diplomacy Furthermore, 1960a, by mitidiplomacy, p. 569). (Morgenthau, of to the growth contributes and minimizing conflicts, gating world state which whose foundations world community upon With
all
these
would
ensure
1960a,
p. 569).
schemes
permanent
rejected
peace
could
be
erected
(Morgenthau,
235
cannot perform its vital role without however, Diplomacy, the first four of which are fundamental, ing by nine rules, of compromise: the remaining five are prerequisites 1.
Diplomacy
2.
must be defined objectives Foreign policy of national interest and must be defended quate
look at the political should Diplomacy the point of view of other nations.
4.
Nations
should
to willing that are not vital to them.
6.
8.
it
cannot
advance
nation
The
Yet
never
put itself retreat without
cannot
without
should
armed
not
great
allow
must
forces
risks. weak
ade-
with
rules
are
eternal
laws
on
ally to make
the
all
deci?
of foreign
leader
of
the
existence
without
meaningless
by
from
scene
from position face and losing
be the instruments
should be government and not its servant.2 opinion
(Morgenthau, is not enough;
in
and not its master.
statesmen. beings: in the intuition of
"the
in terms
of worthless up the shadow of real advantage. substance
The
these
spirit.
compromise
for it.
policy 9.
should
which
sions
give of the
in favor
nation
7.
be
should
nation rights
of
of the crusading
3.
5.
belief
be divested
while
power.
issues
human
should
abid-
public
of
rare
has a somewhat Morgenthau mystical who possess great statesmen knowledge man moves in the sociai which world"
1946, p. 220). there must be
scientific
Unfortunately, of "insights
different
knowledge and higher
The fate of peace and humanity 1946, p. 212). (Morgenthau, in the last analysis, is dependent, and the wisdom upon "the insight man elevates more-than-scientific his experiences into the by which kind"
universal
laws
It is hard genthauian 2For 236
of
human
to escape
analysis,
nature"
the
(Morgenthau,
conclusion
permanent
peace
1946,
that, according can never be
p.
220).
to the achieved
Moron
detailed discussion of the nine rules see Morgenthau, 1960a, pp. 561-67. Background,
Vol 8, No.
this
earth, or it can be achieved only through alone, can bless the world with wise, intuitive,
of
Critique This
the
criticizing
attempts the theory,
by Morgenthau's
grace which, and great statesmen.
Theory
Morgenthau's
section
divine
critics.
of Morgenthau's theory. critique section discusses the various points
While raised
makes it clear that his theory is based on his con? Morgenthau of human This conception is beset by many diffi? nature. ception is nature culties. Besides the obvious that, since human objection for all human Mor? it really explains actions, nothing, responsible
of human Science "consists nature is unscientific. genthau's concept of theories or hypotheses whose truth or reality has to be established Mor? or testing" 1959, p. 67). by critical experiment (Wasserman, theory genthau's and unverifiable The zations. of
is based
such
laws
essentialist
of theory purpose Such generalizations
on
not
(Wasserman,
is the deduction
1959,
on
absolute
p. 67).
of meaningful generali? the careful investigation
from
result
but
hypotheses
reverses the order; he starts with certain Morgenthau and immune which he holds to be timeless to change. generalizations of fulfilling its His theory seems to fall in the awkward position purpose merely with its promise. the
facts.
if Morgenthau have little stated indeed, objection is the conclusion and states, seek that all men, that his theory is when the proposition It is a different however, matter, power. to be demonstrated. statement conclusion offered not as but as One
could
of his assumptions. These is the prisoner assumptions Morgenthau and conclusions to be in line with his advance force the analysis For if one starts with the conviction that all men seek judgments. one power, ing clashes
deviations
will
international
of
Periods power. from the rule.
Morgenthau national politics
in, or recovering is in statement It is too
see
general than meaningful
states are from direct
(1960a, continuously organized agreement
to be rejected the statement
as battlefields
relations
of
peace
p. 38)
will
that
be
"nations
of unend-
accounted
active
for
as
in inter?
involved for, actively preparing in the form of war." This violence with
Morgenthau's assumptions. as incorrect. more Yet it is hardly that "Every person has been sick in 237
the past, is presently sick, or will be sick at one time in the future." The point is that it becomes very difficult at times to know whether in or is simply is trying to describe reality looking Morgenthau for an illustration of his preconceived ideas. reality The to
be
validity "insights"
assumptions, osophers. have an
Morgenthau The trouble is
created
claim
exclusive
Morgenthau's that assert by
Morgenthau self-evident
is
an
Morgenthau's the human
philosophers One can to insights.
the
lust
his support from philmainly he quotes cannot To
easily, from
then, oppose who thinkers phenomenon human trait.
for
as if this proceeds to, his assumptions.
he
concept nature
of
fact
human
were
nature
in support
leads
of,
rather
further
to
diffi?
from the laws derived change, as well. They are offered as truths applicable change, do not always all circumstances. Yet events under
to these uneasy
the
claim
as if it were however, power, He admits, for example, that beyond questioning. seem have shown that certain primitive peoples . ." (Morgenthau, the desire for power 1960a,
discusses
Morgenthau's If human culties.
conform
that
to quotations,
is their
by offering quotations is an occasional for power than an essential rather circumstances
"anthropologists to be free from
it are beyond at all times
resorts
have
men.
position the desire
fact,
Yet p. 33). than contrary
can
Morgenthau's assumptions of "more-than-scientific"
laws.
does
not
that there (1959b, p. 531) in and indeterminism determinism
remarks
Waltz
of juxtaposition Determinism theory.
nature
since concept Indeterminism,
trary to his nature. the which for events
determinist
is man,
natural
the of
outgrowth act cannot
course, is introduced
however, laws cannot
of con?
to account Thus,
explain.
Professor Morgenthau's determinist theory of power does not lead to continuous war only because indeterminist elements are incorporated into it in order to make the formation of a balance of power possible
(Wasserman,
1959, p. 60).
is derived confrom, and closely Morgenthau's concept power of human nature. Indeed, the service that nected with, his concept renders to the theory is that it introduces the human nature concept
of power. by virtue Morgenthau, concept is enabled to take power for granted. concept, the
of his
human
nature
Once the struggle, urge, or drive for power is postulated as the basic motive for state action, it remains only to illustrate it, to discuss its forms and sources, and to inject it as the crucial variable in all relationships (Snyder, 1961, p. 40). 238
Background,
Vol 8, No. 4
is
This moved
the
first
from
the
difficulty realm of
with
the
is
Power power. human nature and of
concept about
assumptions force of international
is
as the moving relations. Thus, the postulated is central framework which the whole theoretical concept upon or verificonstructed is one which is not to be subjected to testing cation. from
Derived
the human
nature
less concept, No beyond change. ent or instinctive of the aspects or accidental static
. ."
ones
There
are so
defined
difficulties
the
becomes
a time-
between
"inher-
1961,
The as
is
result "a
frozen
p. 423).
of
definition
situational
the
p. 423). relations
(Hoffmann,
with
and
drive,'
'power
1961, (Hoffmann, treats international
which concept of separate essences"
universe
concept, power distinction is made
from other to distinguish politics of power, of it is definition Morgenthau's types difficult to imagine whatever that does not involve any relationship "Power in families can be exercized and businesses, too, for power. that broadly action. Given
it fails
is
Power
power.
Yet, "there must example." not regarded as political"
be some
reason
why
1957.
affairs
family
are
Morgenthau's 13). of when an activity would not involving power concept does not provide criterion and, therefore, power becomes political of the political in the direction indicated by Kaplan. (Kaplan, take notice
The
of
relation
influence
remains
the
unclear.
concept
of
power
p.
to those
of
control
and
whether power refers to symmetrical or or both, whether control implies no asymmetrical relationship freedom of choice for the party who is controlled, and whether control is limited just to some properry or characteristic or be? havior of the controller, or whether influence covers any change in the behavior of the influenced regardless of the source of change or the psychological mechanisms involved (Snyder, 1961, p. 40). We
The used
do
not
result
to mean
know
of
the
different
in the imprecision things at different
definition times.
is that
Morgenthau he says that
is power defines
Yet when relation. as power psychological "power, is the value however limited and qualified, which international as supreme" the 1946, politics recognizes (Morgenthau, p. 101), is to power as reference capacity. When he discusses national power he refers
as
Thus, comes
its strength as tool and be? analytical precise term which is accommodated to many evidences.
to power loses power
an ambiguous
quantity,
total
sum
of different
elements.
239
of other vari? complex product to see the light of theory instead of
"is Furthermore, power ables which should be allowed in
hidden
the
most
shadow
of
1961, (Hoffmann, power" In Scientific does not discuss these variables. p. 423). Morgenthau irrational Man vs. Power Politics, he describes power as an inherited human drive. In another like love, is the work, he says that power,
remaining
of
product
man's
loneliness.3
the oversimplifications; ments that go into power admits
Morgenthau ments involved
in
relations.
power motives
He
Yet
about
question remains that
political goes
both
explanations different complex
the
far
are
relations Yet as
to
are
these
unanswered.
power action. so
of
not
the
he is concerned concern
eschew
ele?
only
ele?
only with the with
The result of statesmen. preferences Mor? is what Hoffmann monism." calls (1961, p. 423) "power on power, of its excessive genthau's theory, by virtue emphasis it is becomes Like all single-cause theories, single-factor theory. and
the
ideological
by the fact that no single under investigation.
challenged phenomena
cause
can
for
account
all
the
in interest to define national theory proceeds for foreign and to designate it as the sole guide to finds it still impossible, after many efforts, writer in terms in "defining interest what really is signified
Morgenthau's terms of power This
policy.
comprehend of power." intellectual
category 1960,
(Thompson, answers regarding
or
on
been
of
way
only
"a broad
to provide
foreign policy" approaching who to find many Anyone expects p. 37). of the national and realization the determination
Morgenthau's "the focal point
Indeed, has centered
has
intent
in
interest
1960,
the
Perhaps
his
is
discussion in
concept
debate
the of
the
bound over
national
to
be
disappointed.
theory Morgenthau's interest" (Thompson,
p. 37).
The national
criticism repeated is ambiguous. interest
most
of the Morgenthau's concept interests National may be quite unwho and psychologists Philosophers is that
to change. subject have "interest" that it is an the concept, have analyzed agreed clear, certain, and obvious one; interest does not become ambiguous rather than individuals one deals with collectivities because simply stable
(Aron, help
and
The 1960, p. 86). in an unstable period
national when
interest
survival
concept
is always
can be of little
at stake
and
the
3See above p. 229. 240
Background,
Vol 8, No. 4
most
for courses as choices of action can be suggested divergent survival rather than asserting 1961, Finally, (Hoffman, p. 423). the supremacy is of the national the important interest, question "the
evaluative
one
of
deciding
the pragmatic one of deciding 1959a, p. 38). (Waltz, These
criticisms
are not
interests
which
what
policies
will
without
and legitimate best serve them"
are
but they validity, claimed that his concept
may miss the cleared away
has never Morgenthau point. in defining all the ambiguities and difficulties involved the national He acknowledges interest. the limitation of his concept. The concept of the national interest is similar in two respects to the "great generalities" of the Constitution, such as the general welfare and due process. It contains a residual meaning which is inherent in the concept itself, but beyond these minimum require? ments its content can run the whole gamut of meanings which are 1952, p. 972). logically compatible with it (Morgenthau, One
may
p. 447);
be
inclined
but wish,
to
with agree at the same time,
Whitaker's for
clearer
statement
(1961,
expression:
If he (Morgenthau) has posed, rather than solved, the problem of defining the national interest, it is more appropriate for the academician to work on the solution than to complain of the legitimate question. Beside
the charge
of ambiguity, moral argument there is against The essence of the argument is that Morgen? Morgenthau's concept. of the "moral dignity" of his assertion thau's position, particularly the national is immoral. Tucker interest, may be (1952, p. 221) on the moral argument: cited as representative spokesman Professor Morgenthau's concept of moral obligation amounts to to the statement that men ought (i.e., are morally obliged) behave as they actually do behave. Hence there is no possibility of conflict between man's interest, or his actual behavior, and the whole idea of moral his moral obligation. (So considered, .) obligation becames meaningless .
Tucker
(1952,
p. 223)
further
states:
It must be understood that once we deny the binding character of international moral obligations and assert the moral supremacy of the national interest, no action on the part of the state can the viewpoint, of course, of the particular be considered?from be immoral. Thus the logical conse? state's national interest?to quence of asserting the moral supremacy of the national interest is to assert the moral inferiority of all other national interests. 241
This
of Morgenthau's is based on argument misunderstanding on both ethics and the moral dignity of the national interest.
views
amoralthe point that, despite its apparent is based on moral foundations ity, Morgenthau's (Thomp? position Two writers, Magill son, 1960, p. 146; Fox, 1949b, p. 215). (1962, Mor? in have detail some studied p. 7) and Good (1960, p. 640), Some
writers
have
genthau's concept interest and have but immoral.
argued
of
and its application to the national morality is anything concluded that Morgenthau's position
as indifferent to moral has often been described Morgenthau It is true that Morgen? values. This, indeed, is an unjustified charge. Thus of morality. thau's pessimistic views of man color his concept
he
states
that
"man
with
be good but must be content But to dis1946, p. 192). (Morgenthau, is one thing, to charge of morality concept
cannot
being not too evil" agree with Morgenthau's is immoral that his position believes
that
unavoidable and
the
and
to
hope
is another.
Morgenthau he because
is a moralist fman] the requirements tension between "he
requirements
of morality
is a theme
of
exception
of
Niebuhr,
has
devoted
so much
political
is repeated One may go
that
writings. again throughout Morgenthau's as to assert that no other writer on international
p. 169) (1946, The man." is success again so far
with the relations, to the moral attention
problem. interest of the national dignity" The ultimate nor ambiguous. good, as represented in this world. cannot moral be realized by universal principles, either to try, in vain, to are faced with two alternatives: Nations could lead to an endeavor which moral follow abstract principles, to the or to limit themselves war and endanger their very existence,
Morgenthau's is neither immoral
defense
idea
holds Morgenthau morally and politically.
of themselves.
is to be preferred,
of the "moral
that the second
alternative
The only relevant question is, however, what the practical alter? native is to . imperfections of an international society that is based upon the national interests of its component parts. The attainable alternative is not a higher morality realized through the appli? but moral deterioration moral principles, cation of universal of political failure or the fanaticism either political through crusades (Morgenthau, 1951, p. 30). in 'national interest' Furthermore, incorporates "Morgenthau's that by its nature must transcend its design a notion of responsibility takes pain to 1960, p. 640). Morgenthau (Good, pure self-interest" 242
Background,
Vol 8, No. 4
invest
the
that
nation
view
of
interest
national
He argues with moral content. concept should look at the political scene from the point of nations. in his concept, is a live-and-let-live Implicit
other
to Tucker's the Contrary philosophy. charge, tional interest that nation should implies other
respect
nations'
supremacy consider
of
and
interests.4
the
try
na? to
It might at this point to digress to look be illuminating briefly of the national at an alternative interest offered by two of concept assert that Cook and Moos critics. Morgenthau's p. 129) (1954, Morgenthau's
concept
of
the
national
is dangerous:
interest
If we desire to avoid statism at home and to seek and ensue our purposes both there and abroad, we must reject the concept of . national interest as the national power of an organismic state engaged in struggle for success through triumph by means of power politics. Cook
and
Moos
offer
another
version
of
the
national
interest.
the policy of the United States, they say that the discussing is to pursue and further the principles United States' interest upon which this country rests. While
The or
for
is both
puzzling
that
the principles rests country,
any and irritating.
Moos
pursue
Even
on which are were
of
the United
States,
universal these
applicability of uni? principles
should why other countries Cook and To make worse, things their idea to its inevitable outcome:
there is no applicability, to them. to adhere willing
versal be
proposition that matter
reason
That commitment [to freedom] compels us to combat all types warfare when possible, by of totalitarian tyranny, by ideological refusal to ally ourselves with force when necessary. It requires such regimes . and, under certain conditions, even an inter? vention in their own lands to prevent oppression by them and to .5 aid in their overthrow version is no doubt, in this student's mind, that the crusading interest is not only less expedient of the national than, but also interest. of the national inferior to, Morgenthau's morally concept There
that have been advanced the criticisms Morgen? against Among variables thau's theory is that it leaves out important and, therefore, 4In our opinion, Tucker's clear objections have not been met here or elsewhere. After many years, the problem still maintains its importance. Ed. 5Italics added; Cook and Moos, 1954, p. 130. 243
does
not
offer
an adequate of explanation criticizes p. 407) Morgenthau
Sprout (1949, the objectives
of
of values
absence
national and
its foreign The
the
of
list
state's
1949,
(Sprout, things
to discuss
failing
notes
Wright p. 123) (1952, on policy in Morgenthau's an international representing
of
effects
policy
for
that
concept theory
scene.
international
policy. their effect
McDougal p. 378)6, (1955, objects to Morgenthau's point of view, the Furthermore, body of rigid rules." between and policies ideologies (Aron, to examine
the
of
the
theory.
lawyer's as "a static
law
relation
the
neglects
fails
It also
1960, p. 88). and social political
structure
on
p. 409).
should
have
been
in the
included
theory another.
or out one omission go on. Every critic can point of in almost all the reviews This is that appears type of criticism The factors have been included works. that should Morgenthau's could
vary with every etical orientation.
critic To
to his according tell a theoretician
and
own
predilection how to do his
work
theor?
is one
about aspects of theorizing "for not doing things unfair to chide authors theory. It is manifestly of doing" 1961, p. 38). In the case they had no intention (Snyder, in for the omissions valid there is of Morgenthau, explanation
of
the
less
challenging
and
less
fruitful
his theory:
and is more concerned with interstate relationships Morgenthau for regulating such with the mechanisms, tried and proposed, than he is with the basic conditions and forces out relationships, and consequent regulatory prob? of which interstate relationships lems arise (Sprout, 1949, p. 406). more "reality" "realist" Tucker
of if (1952,
relevant
point
has
been
raised
How theory. Morgenthau's with both it is inconsistent p. 216)
with
can itself
regard be theory
and
with
to
the
labeled reality?
remarks:
On the one hand, we are given laws which supposedly determine most ihe actual behavior of states. On the other hand, there is . exhortation by the author that American foreign persistent policy ought to follow these laws, apparently for the reason that it has not always done so in the past. Waltz
(1959b,
p. 531)
makes
a similar
remark:
At times Professor Morgenthau's writing is purely descriptive, intended to make comprehensible what does happen. At other times 6For detailed criticism of Morgenthau's concept of law, see McDougal's article "Law and Power," The American Journal of International Law, 49 (January 1952), pp. 102-114. 244
Background,
Vol. 8, No.
his writing becames persuasive, intended to convince the leaders of states that they ought to act in certain ways and not in others. concenwhose of Morgenthau p. 57), (1959, critique of inconsistency, the theme the same point: makes
Wasserman on
trates
Professor
Morgenthau claims that his theory is based upon what actually happens yet he complains that what actually happens does not conform to his theory. While he maintains that all international. politics are of necessity power politics his reason for writing is to combat the prevalence of misguided "legalism" and "moralism" not only in the theory, but also in the practice of international politics. inconsistency Morgenthau's First, there is juxtaposition in the theory. Second, there is
mistic
deterministic
his own
influence
deed,
The
realist
normative
views
fate.
can
be traced
to two
main
sources.
of
elements and normative empirical conflict between Morgenthau's pessiand his implication that man can, in?
under to close examination, theory proves, as theories value-oriented do not claim which
and
be
as
"real?
are norms. Thus, when he Indeed, Morgenthau's assumptions think and act in terms of interest says that "we assume that statesmen ." (Morgenthau, . defined as power 1960a, p. 5), he is presenting not only an observable fact but also a norm to be attained. It could ism."
not be otherwise in these
terms.
for experience
Morgenthau's is another norm.
eign policy are other examples
is that not all statesmen
of concept His schemes
have
thought rational for?
completely of the balance
of norms.
is aware of the gap which however, Morgenthau, He argues that, in view of the theory from reality. the theory, this is inevi table:
of
power
separates rationality
his of
Hence, it is no argument against the theory here presented that actual foreign policy does not or cannot live up to it. . Far from being invalidated by the fact that, for instance, perfect balance of power policy will scarcely be found in reality, it assumes that reality, being deficient in this respect, must be understood and evaluated as an approximation to an ideal system of balance of power (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 8). Actually, but also to offered
not
approximate
does not only presume to describe reality, Morgenthau alter it. The laws to which Tucker refers, then, are to some realities do conform only as rules to which extent,
but,
in
addition,
as norms
to which
realities 245
should
conform.
theory, able.
many
of
other
source
The inability
to
Once
stick
one
Morgenthau's
discovers
the
normative
inconsistencies
of inconsistency to his pessimistic
basis
become
of
the
understand-
in Morgenthau's if views. deterministic Indeed, treat of faith in man, he would is to be found
were true to his lack Morgenthau his own theory as an exercise in futility. In rock
"man finds himself to the scheme Morgenthau's pinioned not so much because this seems he has willed evil, but because
to be his
fate"
(Good, absent.
conspicuously discord, contradictions, of things nature and 1946,
(Morgenthau,
The element of human will is 1960, p. 88). Man is destined "unresolvable to live with and which
conflicts human
which reason
are
in
inherent
is powerless
to
the
solve"
p. 206).
The
is mistaken to Morgenthau, age of science, according belief that humanity is progressing future. toward better the tragic sense of history and life. age of science forgets
in its The
is no progress toward the good, noticeable from year to conflict which sees today good, tomorrow year, but undecided evil, prevail; and only at the end of time, immeasurably removed from the here and now of our earthly life, the ultimate triumph of the forces of goodness and light will be assured (Morgenthau, There
1946, pp. 205-206).
to social problems scientific to apply knowledge are doomed to failure; past and contemporary history "offer abundof social action, ant proof of the irrelevance, for success or failure offer" of the kind of knowledge the social sciences (Morgenthau, Man's
efforts
1946, p. 211). "has actually
On the contrary, the reliance to the decadence contributed
(Morgenthau,
1946,
upon factual knowledge of the art of politics"
p. 213).
Nations tries to escape in Politics Among However, Morgenthau, Man vs. in Scientific from the prospect of doom he put forward He realizes that on the domestic Politics. Power "organized plane scale of political action on an extensive as an instrument violence On 1960a, p. 38). (Morgenthau, exception" have used nations he says that "when the international plane, of preventing for the purpose war, they have often sucdiplomacy ceeded" Furthermore, 1960a, Morgenthau's p. 568). (Morgenthau, which seek just of status quo nations of the category introduction has
246
become
a rare
Background,
Vol. 8, No. 4
to maintain not
their
departure
power constitutes from, the original
an important assumption
to, if qualification that all states seek
power. in two most reveals itself inconsistency Morgenthau's clearly of his most vital thus and statesmanship, diplomacy concepts: in his theory. these concepts the most vulnerable rendering points of Morgenthau "the is, in the words Diplomacy (1960a, p. 569), of preserving peace which has to offer." However, Morgenthau's are highly here unrealistic; diplomacy means
best
the theory when to the empirical one. the
As
many
writers
noted, realities
international contemporary an exercise vived diplomacy 1959, None
Waltz, pp. 57-58; of Morgenthau's characterized by
world
hopes
is the one point in perhaps element becomes blind completely
normative
have
of sovereign nations of for the revival
society
in
Morgenthau's makes his
own
of analysis of a rediscussion
wishful
thinking (Wasserman, 1959b, 1949, p. 531; Pettee, p. 1025). for rules can be applied in diplomacy inflexible
and inspired by the bipolarity moral force of nationalistic world that Morgenthau universalism, in the following himself has described words: The moral code of one nation flings the challenge of its universal claim into the face of another, which reciprocates in kind. Com? promise, the virtue of the old diplomacy, becomes the treason of the new. . . Thus the stage is set for a contest among nations whose stakes are no longer their relative positions within a political and moral system accepted by all, but the ability to impose upon the other contestants a new universal political and moral system recreated in the image of the victorious nation's political and moral convictions (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 256). is another
vital, and equally with circle. The struggle tinue to characteriz relations nations, among is the only hope the form of war. Diplomacy
Statesmanship One is confronted
flicts, making world state cannot person
made
be
of
weakness
more
could
to work
secure, ensure without
more
building
permanent statesmen. statesman?
"extraordinary 1960a, p. 569) the difference between
statesman
theory.
What
and
is
the
possessing
(Morgenthau, can one tell is
peace which
important
question.
vulnerable, for power often
for
concept. will con-
exploding
mitigating the foundations
peace. Here To
in con? of
Yet
diplomacy is the greatest
say that he is moral and intellectual qualities" How does not solve the problem.
How
can
and
humanity
Hitler?
produce
There
states247
men?
rules out education and does not suggest any Morgenthau alternative. the peace, then, remains a haphazard Preserving process. there are enough statesmen there will be peace. Humanity Whenever cannot
do
The thau's The
more
than
foregoing theory has
wait,
is evident
for
conclusion
Morgen?
or religious. of con? analysis
century
in Morgenthau's however, If humanity cannot, statesmanship.
reveals
that
and mystical
(Morgenthau, is marred neither by any unconvincing human nor by The mystical vague trust in statesmen.
386) tions
statesmen.
in Morgenthau's his discussion Thus,
relations.
in the mid-twentieth
politics
pray,
perhaps
leads to the analysis two elements: empirical,
element empirical international temporary
of
and
1960a, nature
world
pp.
element
references
itself,
of
335-
explanausually
to the
concept
education, through produce will there remains to do the job. Although but God's statesmen, does not admit it, this position is not dissimilar to the Morgenthau the help of that man cannot save himself without religious position in his is undoubtedly aware of the two elements God. Morgenthau
Thus, in more than one place, he asserts that religion, phil? and even art, no less than science, can prove reliable sources osophy, of knowledge 1960b, p. 8; 1946, p. 123). (Morgenthau, theory.
How clusions
a theory can be so weak in both its assumptions in its empirical discussions is yet be so convincing what led one of Morgenthau's This is perhaps
question. say that "we are offered one" and that "a careful
not
statement
before
It is the
him
(Thompson,
theory as the materials of the complex interrelations
of
opinion
this
1959b, student
con?
puzzling critics to
so much
is still wanting" variables 1959b, (Waltz, important writer says, with an authoritative Another tone, that of unfolding and that his most theory is in process remains
and
p. 529,
for of 530).
Morgenthau's work decisive
p. 133).
that
there
is
clear
difference
Politics Man vs. Power and Politics Scientific Among is placed on In the first of the two books, heavy emphasis Nations. reference is still human nature and the role of statesmen. Although between
made
to human
it is sporadic
in Politics Among and statesmanship Nations, If this observation has with much less emphasis.
nature
and
tried to shift gradually it means that Morgenthau any significance, stand. If, indeed, and philosophical the from his previous mystical in the future, is to follow it work of Morgenthau most important
could
tentious 246
well
be predominantly and, consequently, empirical than his present works. and less vulnerable Background,
less
pre~
Vol 8, No.
Contribution
Morgenthau's To
to
try international avoided.
assess
Morgenthau's is task
relations these
Rather,
resort
critics
of
most
which
to statements
of study have critics
the
to
contribution
his either
or praising is told that
on the one hand, one Thus, Morgenthau. of our contemporary writers on world is "the greatest Morgenthau and that he is "our most 1959b, politics" p. 134) (Thompson, on the other hand, theoretician" 1961, p. 81); prominent (Singer, influ? one is warned that so long as Morgenthau's theory remains criticizing
ential
is unlikely relations"
"there
international The
be
in
the
1959,
p.
progress
(Wasserman,
is difficult
assessment
for more
scientific
of
70).
one
than
study
reason.
The
mere
works writer over whose contemporary an has raged cannot help but introduce of his contribution. tone to the discussion Furthermore, of international has been growing relations so rapidly
is Morgenthau deal of controversy
that
fact
to
great emotional the
study that it becomes
difficult to measure the impact of any one exceedingly of the worth of all the so few adequate individual. With appraisals in international works the assessment theoretical relations, present
of, and comparison certain and tentative. difficult
Yet,
different
between,
and
uncertain
as the
to be un-
is bound
theories
of evaluation
task
is, study without at least
of
could not be considered Morgenthau complete on the field. Morgenthau's his impact con? some effort to measure in one looks at his theory cannot clear unless be made tribution of
view
the
followed
it.
relations
will
theoretical To
suggest be divided
an historical
roughly senting clominated the to the
field
period: (1) the beginning
the
of
school
idealist
the
twentieth
relations
International the
law
possible
visionary and order that
missionary disillusionment
which
century in the
which the realist school emerged (2) dominant until the mid-1960's, and (3) in the field today. which seeks to prevail
school
systemic
of
from
which
early 1940's, and remained
1940's
with
it, and those which preceded the study of international perspective, of thought, into three schools each repre-
efforts
the zeal
On the contrary,
as
separate
field
of
war and hope of eliminating in the relations nations. among
exertion could
of
abolish
some
the evil
of the First World the experience
intellectual
War
of war. shattered
of war gave
study
was
the
created
an era initiating It seemed quite effort coupled with Not
even
the great
the utopian hopes. to the reformimpetus
249
"To
ing spirit.
the prewar arbitration
trinity of democracy, were national added
under?
international
and self-determination, standing, This and collective 1949a, disarmament, security" (Fox, p. 70). to the but extended reforming spirit did not limit itself to research of international
teaching
relations.
In the universities, number of student generations were taught of world peace, the international relations as moral principles of departure potential splendors of the League, the wickedness from Wilsonian doctrines, the evils of imperialism and dollar better world diplomacy, and the efficacy of popular demands for and for change of heart (Cook and Moos, 1954, p. 95). The often
idealist
in the
that analyzed therefore, Attention, in the idealist scheme.
theory theoretical
speak
framework of
of
study detailed
been
fluous.
not
stage
international
discussion
will
be
would
here
directed
The
model.
so
be super-
one
to
only: aspect to detect a clear
difficult It is, indeed, in the works of the idealist
an idealist
has
relations
One can? period. era was characterized
idealist
by striking poverty in theory. This period even failed to emphasize deals with a system characterized relations the fact that international was of central the real world Thus, by the absence authority. from an ideal world common? in terms of its deviation described characterized
wealth
the
short,
idealist 1951,
(Wolfers, Realism development ary
projects, 1961, (Carr,
In 1949a, (Fox, by permanent peace p. 77). "has been anything but theory-minded" school
p. 44).
in the which, upon wishing impact of thinking of its first visionthe breakdown follows of science, the end of specifically and marks utopian period" was a of the realist school The emergence p. 239).
is "the
and started in the 1930's gradual process which the Second World War, late 1940's. Following
culminated
in the
the study of international politics replaced the study of inter? ... national organization as the central point of reference in interna? tional relations. An approach was made to recurrent world problems not with a view to praise or condemn but to understand them (Thompson, To
1959a, p. 213).
Morgenthau give would be unfair
realism
all
the
to the
credit
many
Yet, without Morgenthau, process. as was orientation lacking in theoretical
the
paper that and direction
of this form 250
Morgenthau's to realism.
for
the
authors
who
contributed
of to
might have been as It is the contention idealism. realism
first contribution
The
introduction
realist
reaction
has was
Background,
to give transformed
been
Vol. 8, No.
into by Morgenthau then, that whenever
distinctive there
is made
reference
relations,
is
of thought. of realism
school discussion
It is no wonder, in international
to Morgenthau. inevitably realist author. Yet it seems
Obviously, that he was
is not the only Morgenthau the first to develop realist model. It is to Morgenthau's testimony relations that in the study of international contribution outstanding "realism"
and
Debate national on one's
can be treated
"Morgenthauism"
almost
as synonyms.
of inter? on today whether macro-theory goes relations is possible. Of course the final answer depends in terms of of theory and of what one requires definition still
description,
explanation,
and
Yet,
prediction.
for
all
its
short-
or macro-theory comings, theory represents Morgenthau's general of international relations. It is not to be forgotten that Morgenthau wrote a book which had clear theoretical focus. He demonstrated Mor? could be systematic. relations study of international seeond contribution, then, lies in the fact that he provided genthau's of from the necessary idealism to the systemic transition study the
that
international
of
relations.
in the field the dominant school longer of Morgenthau's The weaknesses theory considered. It is sufficient to say here that the
is no Realism, today, international relations.
have study
been already of international
relations
outgrew Morgenthau's simply The use of the word is its successor.
school The systemic theory. an agree? because "school" it implies is very misleading, however, The present on fundamentals which exists. ment hardly stage in relations has three general characteristics. the study of international relainternational dissatisfaction First, there is among growing there is with the state of the field. Seeond, tionists rising conviction
that
the
conceptual equipment and most important, Third, ploited. relations the study of international
of other there
must be exdisciplines is clear trend to make
as scientific
as possible.
data, of building Today, workers in the field talk of quantifying models, of testing hypotheses, of verifying constructs, of comparing abstract and empirical formulations; they have, in short, acquired new language, the language of the scientific method (Rosenau, 1961, p. 7). there these broad trends, Beyond the use of the word school in describing
has
not
yet found
its Morgenthau.
is hardly anything the present stage.
Thus,
there
are almost
to This
justify stage
as many
251
theoretical has
not
focuses yet even
as
there
are
on
to agree
managed
movement systemic of theory. definition The
theorists.
If we could say what theory is, we could probably give definition to the conditions and trends of science or study of international relations, but we cannot. If we had one or several general theories of international relations, we would know what we meant by special and middle-range 1960, theorizing, but we do not (McClelland,
p. 304).
It is no wonder, then, that international over the nature of their discipline.
are still
relationists
divided
relations is now F. S. C. Northrop believes that international science. Quincy Wright believes it can become science. Kenneth science, and Stanley Hoff? Thompson is convinced that it is not mann thinks it never can be (Whitaker, 1961, p. 439). However, the definition
if scholars
in international
are divided
relations
over
with of theory, they are united in their dissatisfaction in the present trend is Morgenthau's the state of their study. Lacking of the eternal laws of politics. in the simple belief discovery Presumably no social scientist is ever fully satisfied with the progress about of his discipline. Yet, few seem to be more self-conscious the state of their studies, to be searching more keenly for newer and better foci, concepts, data, and methods than those who in the area of international relations. It is painfully specialize clearer sense of obvious to most of them that there is need for purpose, for greater clarity of concepts, and for progress toward and of more specific propositions, the development hypotheses, theories which will unify field of inquiry whose boundaries are 1961, p. 8). vague and whose content is diffuse (Sondermann, The
result
of
this
dissatisfaction growing chaos. termed intellectual
be justification, figure in the center there
with
and
admirers
system-analysis, equilibrium,
mention
some
thau
is
relations. systemic 252
be clear
from
what
most
has
been
useful
said
in the present stage of the stranger far cry from is His language
ferment.
is
no
each
dominant
He has no reason
focus
Rather
side.
Kaplan's and Liska's
System approach, Each notable examples.
as the single is presented approaches relations. of international It should
reasonable
with
decision-making,
approaches?Snyder's General McClelland's
to
on
critics
different
are
can, There
of
these
for the study
so far that
Morgen? of international
study the language
to be dissatisfied
since
Background,
of
the
his theory
Vol. 8, No. 4
purports national
to
all present relations. The
an appeal
have
At
this
Morgenthau's been limited
that
is
worthwhile
knowing approach
inter-disciplinary
to Morgenthau.
about is
inter?
unlikely
to
Has itself: important presents question relations to the study of international of an advanced realist theory which to his formulation
very point contribution
an idealist and a transition between necessary period one? In other words, does Morgenthau's systemic already theory to the past? This question How? is very difficult to answer. belong First, the present ever, it seems that there are three possibilities. in producing thus pushing trend could succeed scientific theories,
provided
the
nonscientific Morgenthau's at synthesis, which tempts
materialize, of version
thus
providing
theory so far
to
atSecond, background. could been vague outlines, a revised of incorporating
the
have
the possibility
as general Morgenthau's part of power approach focus could the present trend toward the systemic Third, theory. of producing results. In that eventuality, prove incapable impressive there is of the emergence of neo-Morgenthauism possibility which
would
"rediscover"
and,
perhaps,
revitalize
Morgenthau's
theory.
REFERENCES
ARON, RAYMOND. "The Quest for Philosophy of Foreign Affairs," in Stanley Hoffman, editor. Contemporary Theory in International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1960, pp. 79-91. BOULDING, KENNETH E. "Theoretical Systems and Political Realities," Journal (December, 1958), pp. 329-347. of Conflict Resolution. BRECHT, ARNOLD. Political Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959. CARR, EDWARD HALLETT. The Twenty Years' Crisis. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1961. COOK, THOMAS L, and MOOS, MALCOLM. Power Through Purpose. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1954. FOX, WILLIAM T. R. "Inter-War International Relations Research: The American Experience," World Politics. 2 (October, 1949a), pp. 67-79. 253
"The Reconciliation of the Desirable and the Possible," American Scholar. 18 (Spring, 1949b), pp. 212-216. .
"The Uses of International Relations Theory," in William T. R. editor. Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame: Univer? Fox, sity of Notre Dame Press, 1959.
GOOD, ROBERT C. "The National Interest and Political Realism: Neibuhr's Debate with Morgenthau and Kennan," The Journal of Politics. (December, 1958), pp. 577-619. HOBBES, THOMAS. Leviathan. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1947. HOFFMANN, STANLEY N. "International Relations: The Long Road to Theory," in James N. Rosenau, editor. International Poltics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961, pp. 421-437. KAPLAN, MORTON A. System and Process in International Politics. New York: Sons, Inc, 1957. John Wiley McCLELLAND, CHARLES A. "The Function of Theory in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution. (September, 1960), pp. 102-114. MacDOUGAL, MYRES S. "Law and Power," The American Journal of International Law. 46 (January, 1952), pp. 102-114. .
"The Realist Theory in Pyrrhic Victory," The American Journal of International Law. 49 (July, 1955), pp. 376-378.
MAGILL, SAMUEL H. "Neither Utopian Nor Realist," Worldview. 1962), pp. 6-9.
(September,
MORGENTHAU, HANS J. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: The Uni? versity of Chicago Press, 1946. _.
Knopf, 1951.
In Defense of the National Interest. New
York: Alfred A.
.
"Another 'Great Debate': The National Interest of the United States," The American Political Science Review. 46 (December, 1952), pp. 961-988.
.
"The Nature and Limits of Theory of International Relations," in William T. R. Fox, editor. Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959, pp. 15-28.
.
Politics Among Nations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960a.
.
The Purpose of American Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1960b.
The Decline of Chicago Press, 1962.
of Democratic Politics. Chicago: The University
"The Commitments of Political Science," pp. 36-52,
1962a.
"The Escape from Power," pp. 311-317, 1962b. 254
Background,
Vol. 8, No.
"The Intellectual and Moral Dilemma of Politics," pp. 7-14, 1962c. "The Intellectual and Political Functions of Relations," pp. 62-78, 1962d.
Theory of International
"International Relations as an Academic Discipline," pp. 113-126, 1962e. "The Problem of the National Interest," pp. 79-112, 1962f. "The State of Political Science," pp. 16-35, 1962g. .
The Restoration of American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962h. "International Relations," pp. 167-175, 1962i. "Love and Power," pp. 7-14, 1962j.
PETTEE, GEORGE S. "Review: Politics Among Nations" Review. 49 (September, 1949), pp. 1025-1028.
American Economic
ROSENAU, JAMES N. (editor). International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961. SINGER, J. DAVID. "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations," World Politics. 14 (October, 1961), pp. 77-92. SNYDER, RICHARD C. "International Relations Theory?Continued," tics. 13 (January, 1961), pp. 300-312.
World Poli?
SONDERMANN, FRED A. "The Linkage Between Foreign Policy and International Politics," in James N. Rosenau, editor. International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961, pp. 8-17. SPROUT, HAROLD. "In Defense of Diplomacy," World Politics. 1 (April, 1949), pp. 404-413. STRAUSS, LEO. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Translated from the German manuscript by Elsa M. Sinclair. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952. THOMPSON, KENNETH W. "American Approaches to International Politics," The Year Book of World Affairs. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1959a, pp. 205-235. Christian Ethics and the Dilemmas of Foreign Policy. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1959b. Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960. TUCKER, ROBERT W. "Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Political 'Realism,'" The American Political Science Review. 46 (March, 1952), pp. 214-224. WALTZ, KENNETH N. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959a. "Review: Dilemmas of Politics," The American Political Science Review. 53 (June, 1959b), pp. 529-532. 255
