John H. Herz in his paper an interesting concept of Realist Liberalism. This term stands for a middle ground between “utopian Idealism and crude power-realism.” For Herz, this theory if implemented would simply eradicate the struggle between the two grand theories of international relations. Realist Liberalism harbors all the good from the two theories, combines and thus according to Herz at least, “Provides a chance to contribute to lasting achievements of human freedom.”
Herz believes the Realist Liberalism is far less glamourous then Political Idealism, however to me it seems just as far fetched as utopian idealism. The idea that it will Realist liberals will have the ability to reach “a peace that would neither be appeasement and abdication nor the Carthaginian result of a war” seems impossible to say the least. The fact that rival theories can be merged, is in itself idealistic.
Apart from the well intentioned yet impossible (according to me) theory proposed by Herz, the passage talking about how the universalistic ideology was eliminated from nationalism thus leading to the over-arching security dilemma was fascinating to read. Especially, Joseph de Maistre’s saying “In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian.But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.”The idea that man cannot be separated from the nation, that his identity is the nation and nothing more is indeed something to ponder about. After reading this quote, I looked Maistre up online and stumbled on to a book called Feeling Global: Internationalism by Bruce Robbin. Bruce Robbin comments on Maistre’s abstract man and nationalism. He states that “Nationality, it would appear, is also an artifice, a fragile historical generalization, rather than a given state of nature”. Thus all nations are abstract constructions just like man is according to Maistre.
I agree with your assessment that trying to merge rival theories is idealistic at best, but at least he does highlight some of the most salient strengths from both theories.
ReplyDeleteOn your point of man and nationalism, this is a rich topic of discussion and debate. Can man be separated from the state? And how much of a role does the state play in defining man? These are questions that continue to be actively debated in the academe today.