Morgenthau in the opening chapter of his book “Politics Among Nations” contrasts and defines to some extent Realism with Idealism. Idealism seeks to look at the world and human nature as essentially good and with “infinite malleability.”It is the proponent of the thought that“rational and moral political order, derived from universally valid abstract principles, can be achieved.” On the other hand, realism is more rational and believes that the world is imperfect and it is so because of the inherent nature of man. However, unlike the prescriptions by Kenneth Waltz, Morgenthau accepts this ‘primordial’ nature of man and doesn’t advocate to change it but believed that “to improve the world one must work with those forces, not against them.” Morgenthau then goes on to state the six defining principles of political realism.
One of the principles I found fascinating was that,“Political realism refuses to identify moral aspirations of a particular nation with the morals that govern the universe.” It aims to distinguish between truth and opinion. This reminds me of the Fanon’s Algeria Unveiled, where he shows that the French idea of morals and liberty was in clash with those of the Algerians, which resulted in a backlash that the French themselves were taken aback by. I think Morgenthau raised an important point that no one nation or person can define the morality of states relations or in terms individual morals.
One of the criticisms I would like raise would be Morgenthau’s idea of power and interests. Although I am aware that your national interests play a vital role in foreign policy making. However, the idea that “the key concept of interests defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid”, seems incomplete. He fails to define what he means by the term ‘power.’ Is it economic, military,etc?
I really liked your example of the clash between the moralities of the French and the Algerians. Put the theory into a context well.
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues that I faced with Morgenthau's piece was the fact that he placed so much emphasis on power, while trying to dissociate it from other elements like economics, ethics and religion. While he vaguely describes power as being of the physical sense as well as soft power, he does not specify exactly what this "power" constitutes of.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that someone else also picked up on this.
Although Morgenthau isn't as clear in this piece about the definitional elements of power, he - like realists in general - is referring to "hard" power, i.e. military or coercive means used to achieve particular objectives. At times, this can also include economic power and other types of coercion.
ReplyDelete