The concepts of the nature of man, society and politics can
be divided into two schools of modern political thought. One school places
confidence in the “essential goodness and infinite malleability” of human
nature, with the responsibility of the failure of the social order falling on a
lack of knowledge and outdated social institutions. The other school argues
that the existing world order, with all its conflict and opposing interests,
has come about as a result of human nature. Morgenthau while adhering to the
latter school of thought, in his book “Politics among Nations” aims to identify
the basic tenets of realism - a theory that draws on an analysis of history and
human nature to draw inferences about the world order.
According to Morgenthau, from a realistic point of view, the
arena of international politics is defined by ‘interests’. Unlike human nature,
which he claims to be unchanging over time and space, interests of a nation
state are subject to change. By limiting these interests to those pertaining to
‘power’, Morgenthau has attempted to remove all non-political interests (such as
ethics, economics and religion) from the discipline in order to bring a measure
of order into the sphere of political science. However, I find it difficult to
wrap my head around this idea.
By restricting power to be that of “man over man”, he refers
to the physical as well as psychological forms of control. This presents a
contradiction within his claims. While he claims that there is no room for
non-political attributes of humans and states in the international political
system, it is these characteristics that can be linked directly to ‘power’ as a
political interest. Power itself can be determined by non-political interests
such as economics and religion. The shifting balance of power within the world
because of the rise of China as a leading global economy can give credence to
the importance of including non-political interests in the analysis. In
addition, the increase in terrorism in countries such as Pakistan might have
some basis in the indoctrination of individuals, using religion as a tool of control.
Therefore, for a more holistic understanding of international politics, it is
imperative to include interests such as economics, ethics and religion in the
analysis.
I agree that in order to understand power, elements such as history, religion and ethics cannot be excluded. This is because apart from political control there are also many forms of informal control that exert power over individuals. Hence to fully comprehend where power lies all structures of society need to be examined.
ReplyDeleteIts actually interesting the see the examples you have given to make your point of how ethics and economics should also also be taken into consideration. I agree with your analysis as a holistic approach needs to be taken in which all the elements should be studied
ReplyDeleteFoucault sums the idea of power very aptly: Power is everywhere: not that it engulfs everything, but that it comes from everywhere. Taking from this, it is appropriately mentioned that power can be executed via various avenues on individuals.
ReplyDeleteOf course it makes sense to include a whole host of variables when analyzing politics. But by focusing on interests defined through power, Morgenthau is attempting to simplify how we understand international relations through the lens of power politics.
ReplyDeleteAnam, good point on Foucault.