'The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Progpaganda?' is an academic Spanish Inquisition into the array of different interpretations of the academic cliche 'Balance of Power'. Haas' main concern is the fact that the art of perception and interpretation has clouded the ability to understand the mechanism of the International System and how in particular the multifaceted interpretations of balance of power has not challenged but contorted academic debate. The problem is not in defining the balance of power, but being able to reach a consensus as to what it is - the explanation of the Cold War for instance will be redefined completely if the eight different meanings of Balance of Power are applied to it.
Haas lets the cat out of the bag when he very accurately depicts and differentiates the various usages of the word - the academia has to have pulled a fast one on us because what has skewed ones perception of the balance of power is the idea that balance of power, hegemony, equilibrium, instability, war, power politics and peace are interchangeable which makes it difficult to fathom how such contradictory and polar opposite denotations can be compounded into one word. It really is surprising, if not amusing in the very least! Darwin's quote, "Evolution is faster than man" is fitting for these circumstances.
Haas further identifies the fact that the sheer complexity in the definition of this term has severely hindered heuristic and theoretical development because on what existing pretext or definition is a theory to be developed on if so many definitions exist, making every perceivable debate a contradiction to a previously existing one. The balance of power somehow becomes redundant in its usage, especially when it is used to explain the distribution of power because essentially distribution and balance are two completely different words. What seems to make most sense is that balance should mean equilibrium but this becomes extremely problematic when one realizes that there has never been nor will there potentially be a sound equilibrium as such - most of the authors who have constructed historical narratives about the Cold War have described the proxy wars between the USA and USSR in terms of a shift, a tilt, or a challenge to the existing balance of power. This perhaps suggests that the balance of power assumes an existing equilibrium but circumstances and the race for survival has made the balance of power a propaganda tool for policy making.
The article leaves us with the idea that it is important to conceive of International Theory ideas as those that are constantly changing and being challenged which renders these theories as only analytical and descriptive.
The article leaves us with the idea that it is important to conceive of International Theory ideas as those that are constantly changing and being challenged which renders these theories as only analytical and descriptive.
Good post and it is important to remember the context in which he wrote. Balance of power did indeed have a variety of definitions, but in the 1950s its was being thrown around by both academics and politicians to justify their respective arguments. I think the most useful way to understand balance of power - or any other contested terms - is for the author to define precisely what they mean when they use the term, so that we as readers can understand exactly what they mean.
ReplyDelete