Morganthau's introductory comments on the six principles of political realism sheds light on the multi-faceted nature of the Realist school. He claims that 'society is governed by by objective laws that have their root in human nature.' This goes hand in hand with Waltz argument who also classified man and the socially constructed rules of governance that he formulates for the society as one of the primary forces which determines the nature of international relations and foreign policy. Morganthaus apt description of the six principles is interesting where he speaks about the moral significance of political actions and delves into the pluralistic conception of human nature. However, what was most interesting was his discussion of the concept of interests.
Realism claims that to understand foreign relations we need to understand the acts performed by statesmen and the consequences of those acts. This gives impetus to an interesting argument because how can one be sure about ones interests? Political agendas differ person to person and the way that he portrays himself in the global arena is perhaps not an accurate reflection of his actual agenda. An interesting example of this is when superpowers provide bilateral aid to countries under the facade of helping the people for humanitarian reasons. However, in such cases there are more deep rooted intentions for this help such as exemption from tariffs or some form of economic or policy concessions. So, are actions the best determinant of interests? As Morganthau also claims, it is not. One can not use interests as a determinant of predicting behavior because there is no consistency and there is no structured empirical evidence which augments such a psychological concept.
Realism tries to deconstruct the understanding of interests because on the international platform idealist statesmen assume that actions and rhetoric reflect interests. However, this is not the case. Statesmen use media and propaganda to show to others their 'interests'- whether these are true or not is subject to debate- and this is steadily internalized within the people and creates a sense of false consciousness. This social construction of the idea of interests needs to be shattered and there should be an understanding that actions are not an accurate representation of interests.
Realism claims that to understand foreign relations we need to understand the acts performed by statesmen and the consequences of those acts. This gives impetus to an interesting argument because how can one be sure about ones interests? Political agendas differ person to person and the way that he portrays himself in the global arena is perhaps not an accurate reflection of his actual agenda. An interesting example of this is when superpowers provide bilateral aid to countries under the facade of helping the people for humanitarian reasons. However, in such cases there are more deep rooted intentions for this help such as exemption from tariffs or some form of economic or policy concessions. So, are actions the best determinant of interests? As Morganthau also claims, it is not. One can not use interests as a determinant of predicting behavior because there is no consistency and there is no structured empirical evidence which augments such a psychological concept.
Realism tries to deconstruct the understanding of interests because on the international platform idealist statesmen assume that actions and rhetoric reflect interests. However, this is not the case. Statesmen use media and propaganda to show to others their 'interests'- whether these are true or not is subject to debate- and this is steadily internalized within the people and creates a sense of false consciousness. This social construction of the idea of interests needs to be shattered and there should be an understanding that actions are not an accurate representation of interests.
I like your post and I agree that the actions don't always align with interests. But using interests as a barometer for actions is helpful in understanding IR.
ReplyDelete