John Herz, an International Relation scholar, wrote many influential books and articles. Herz is famous for elaborating and coining the concept of "security dilemma".
Since the beginning of known history men, nations and their leaders have grappled with the ‘security dilemma'. As a result , states try to acquire more and more power and this situation renders the other states more insecure.Political Realism and Political Idealism are two major ways of reacting to this situation in IR.Political Realism recognizes the phenomena which are connected with the urge for security and competition for power. Political idealism assumes that a harmony exists, or can be realized between the individual concern and general good. Power is something that can easily be channelized, diffused and utilized for the common good and it can be ultimately eliminated altogether from political relationships.
In this essay, writer tried to develop a theory midway between extreme realism and Utopian idealism.This idea may seems very unique and interesting but in practical term it is not as simple. Furthermore, according to Robert Cox, every theory is written for a purpose and we must question theories. I believe that Herz's theory is another way to get more power or hegemony over common person. Gramsie's concept of hegemony is applicable here, according to the Gramsie, hegemony is a combination of coercion and consent which is not merely exercised by the state but by institutions as well. In this case, state represent the realist and institutions represent idealist, which serve the interests of the ruling classes. Gramsci uses the concept of hegemony to explain power dynamics and we can say that, Purpose of this theory is to resilience of modern bourgeois society to revolutionary efforts. Thus, I'm not in support of Herz's essay as this theory does not challenge assumptions and norms, and does not articulate new ideas and visions.
Dont you think that the fusion of ideas of the realist and idealist realms will give birth to new ideas and visions, and automatically then also bring about ideas that will challenge the long withstanding norms and ideas that have been accepted and applied for decades in the international political arena? I think what Hertz says is important, and that we need to find a ground between idealism and realism, just that for some it will be inclined towards realism, for others towards idealism, keeping in mind how history has shaped their economies, state machineries etc.
ReplyDeleteIts fascinating that you've brought in postcolonial theorists, but don't you think you're being a tad harsh on Herz? After all, he's more interested in explaining systemic issues more than anything else. Hence I agree with Babar's comment.
ReplyDelete