Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz - Essay Example

ical and Structural Realism introduction The attempt to understand the behaviour of s in international politics has been based on the common pillar of politics, which is the struggle for power (Mclean & McMillan, 2003, p183). Realism theories can be traced back to Thucydides and ancient Greek during the Peloponnesian war in 5th century BC, however, the study of the theory came about 2500 years later when the subject of international politics and relations was institutionalized and the first classical realists began to emerge (Burchill, et al, 2001, p108; Forde, S, 2012). Among the Germans and Jews in the united states of America, the work of Hans Morgenthau had the greatest impact , where in his magnum opus from 1948, politics among nations, he formulated an account of political realism that was used to study international relations and politics for more than two generations (Maliniak et al, 2007, p99). The classical realism work of Hans Morgenthau was to be later succeeded by Kenneth waltz structural realism/ neorealism which attempted to introduce scientific methods in study of international relations (Booth, 2008, p 520). In his book, ‘theory of international politics’ which was released in 1979, he tried to divide study of international politics and relations into two groups; classical realism and neorealism/ structural realism, this essay will highlight the differences between the two theories and the recommend the most suitable in studying international relations in the modern international political arena. conventional outlook of classical realism and structural realism According to the conventional view, realism is apprehensive with how the humankind is in contrast with the ideal situation, this is to mean that it is an empirical rather than normative paradigm. Realism views things from a pessimistic perspective since it emphasizes on the patterns of power politics that are dominant in the global political arena manifested through wars, recurring conflicts and rivalry among nations (Burchill, 2012, p101). Issues such as balance of power and security threats and measures are the main tools that the realism uses in the study of world politics; in addition, realists consider a state as the main player in international politics. Realism pays special attention to the most powerful states as they have a greater say in international politics compared to the less powerful states, the behaviour of these states usually dictates the patterns of international relations since they are considered rational egoists whose self interests come first. In the orthodox view, four differences are evident between classical realism and structural realism; the first difference is that while classical realism tries to locate the source of international conflict and wars to the imperfect nature of human beings, structural realism attributes these conflicts and wars to the anarchic nature of the international political system. The second difference is that while classical realism recognises the state as the most superior player in international relations, structural realism recognizes the role played by agents. The third difference is that classical realism recognises the original super powers and the new powers in international relations while structural realism recognizes states as independent and unitary actors. The fourth difference is that while structural realism uses scientific methodology to study international relations which is influenced by the behaviourist revolution of the 1960’s, classical realism studies international relations based on based on an individual’s subjective valuations. Defining power Realism believes that the actions of a country are to a large extent determined by events that happen in the international arena. Hans Morgenthau defines power as the anything that gives a man control over another person; this includes both physical aggression and psychological manipulation of the subjects. According to Hans, the most important material aspect of power is the military, a country’s character, morale and the quality of governance (Williams, 2007, p102). On the other hand, Kenneth Waltz gives a thinner definition of power, which he equates to the size of a country’s population and geography, resources available to the country, economic might, military strength, political strength and competence. Thus, while Hans has put a lot of emphasis on immaterial sources of power, waltz has dwelt on the material sources of power. Why states struggle for power In explaining why the states struggle for power, Hans Morgenthau uses the perspective of human nature which emphasis on traits that are inherent in humans; according to Hans, politics, like other aspects of a society, is guided by objective laws that have their foundation in human nature. The struggle for power in the international political scene is guided by the desire of the political man to gain dominance over other beings; Hans goes ahead to explain that the state is a collective reflection of political man's desire for power which takes it to the international stage. According to the classical realism, anarchy is not the cause of competition in world politics but a permissive force which means that the there are no restrictions to the extent in which man can pursue his desire to control others (Crawford, 2013, p262). Waltz, in his structural realism, argue that anarchy in the international political system is the main cause of struggle for power, therefore, countries that struggle for power are just following the dictates of the international system in order to survive since there is no authority to offer them protection that they need. Critical and normative dimensions of power politics In classical realism, there is a lot of critical and normative analysis. following the work of Hannah Arendt, Hans differentiated between ‘vita contemplativa’ and ‘vita activa’ where the first term relates to truth while the second term relates to power, according to Hans classical realism, these two terms are at conflict with each other since they are directed towards different goals (Cozette , 2008, p 18). While the truth aims at explaining power for what it is in order to open up space for normative and critical challenges for the current state of affairs, power tries to mask itself as the bearer of truth and justice in order to maintain the current state of affairs. Hans therefore argues that it is the work of the scholars to unmask power for what it really is; he does this by attacking rational liberalism, which hides itself under rationality and harmony of interest while at the same time aiming to maintain the status quo. In his book ‘politics among nations’ states that the goal of the foreign policy of a nation can include all objectives that any nation has ever pursued or can pursue, therefore a good a foreign policy for any country is that which takes into account the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success. However, countries can chose not to act in accordance with these moral requirements since they are not efficient as political restraints. The work of Kenneth waltz is void of any critical and normative analysis; this can be attributed to reasons that are inherent in the Waltz work. One of the reasons for this apathy towards critical an normative analysis is that Waltz’s work focuses on structure as the main determinant of the behaviour of the units within it, therefore, only structural changes are able to affect international outcomes in international relations. This means that there is very little room for agency in Waltz’s world and it would be redundant to engage in prescriptions when it is general factors that ultimately decide a nation’s behaviour. Waltz is open to the viewpoint of transformation in the structure of the international system but he regards it as a formidable challenge, unlikely to happen in the near future. Secondly, Waltz wrote his work during the period of the Cold War, that involved bipolar system among the 2 most influential countries in that period, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Since Waltz contends that the bipolar spread of power is the most secure and peaceful form of international system, he was disapproval of the status-quo and had therefore no reason to go against it. Power and conflict Classical realists see power as an end in itself while structural realists see power as a mean to an end; structural realists argue that individuals and states pursue power because it is in the nature of humans to pursue power and enjoy the fruits that power brings with it. Classical realists only pursue power because of the relative gains in comparison to other states (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2010, p184) Structural realists are open to the possibility of states cooperating in order to benefit more from power, for instance, the European Union, and therefore countries should focus on both absolute and relative benefits of power. Kenneth waltz, in his work ‘the origin of war in neorealist theory’ is critical of classical realism as discussed by Hans Morgenthau who viewed war as an end in itself, although Hans acknowledged that countries act out of other motivations apart from power, those actions are not considered of a political nature. On the other side, structural realists argue that countries can use power for purposeful means and that too much or too little of it is harmful since in desperate situations, the main goal of nations is security and not power. In this case structural realist try to move away from the classical subjective explanation of actions as resulting from nature to a more objective explanation where actions of nations are explained by factors such as social and economic conditions. Morgenthau argued that the desire for power was as a result of necessity where some countries wanted to exercise their authority on an international level. For instance, the balance of power that was experienced in the 19th century was as a result of strong international society led by the powerful countries, which made it up (Brown & Ainley, 2005 p65). Apart from the desire of exercising authority, classical realists also find the need to bring order in to the anarchic international system as another reason that made some countries desire to control others. Classical realists advocate for foreign policy that involves containment to maintain peace and order in the world while the structural realists are opposed to this idea and instead they advocate for political structures as the most appropriate means to maintain peace in the world. Classical and structural realists disagree strongly on the best method that can be used to balance power in the international system. Classical realists favour a multi polar system where the most powerful nations can have different types of formation to balance power depending on the international political environment. On the other hand, structural/neorealists favour a bipolar system where there are two political systems in the world where each of the two systems is the only significant threat to the other; this leads to them becoming enemies; this therefore makes them balance their powers against each other. Since structural realists acknowledge that war is a means to an end, they accept the fact that countries can go to war for other reasons other than power, however classical realists view was as an end in itself therefore countries only go to war due to competition for power (Williams, 2005, p 205). Role of morality A major are where classical and structural realists differ is the role of values and justice in relations. Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau argue that justice are an essential part of any functional community since it is through a community that individual goals and aspirations are realised, these principles ensure that power is easily translated in to influence. Failure to involve justice in a state’s affair will have disastrous consequences both internally and externally. For structural realists, there are no guiding principles in policy formulation for international relations since policies are determined by the dynamics of the structure of the international system. Analysing international relations after cold war Both the classical and neorealism/ structural realism theories are applicable in analysing international relations after the cold war, however, since the structural realism theory was developed after the classical realism theories was found to have serious flaws. Therefore, the structural realism that as proponents such as Kenneth waltz is the most suitably placed to explain international relations after the cold war. Several reasons inform this conclusion, which include the flaws in classical realism and the strengths of structural realism. Flaws of the classical realism in explaining international relations after cold war Classical realism fails to capture one of the most important aspects of international relations; that is the possibility of two or more nations working together. This flaw is attributable to oversimplification of the players in the international system by classical theorists where they assume that circumstances that are applicable to one nation are applicable to all other nations (Brown, 2012, p444). Although these realists acknowledge there is a difference between the more powerful and the less powerful states in the way they relate with other states and the options that are available to them in these relations, they assume that all countries are the same in terms effectiveness of control, which they have over the relations within their borders. This assumptions are too rigid and static and cannot fit in the current global atmosphere which has seen globalization advance at a very fast pace. The static nature of the classical realism that states are the highest players in the international political environment and act as a unitary entity pursuing self-interests has been proven fallacious (Behr & Heath, 2009, p 335). For instance, some countries have smaller economies than some multinational corporations do do and some multinational corporations employ quasi-military forces to protect their assets therefore more powerful than the states. Another example is the formational of regional economic and political blocs, for instance the European Union that has disproved the unitary and anarchic theory of classical theorists (Hill & Smith, 2011, p109). European union is a supranational government which is above the state therefore casting into doubt the theory of the state as being the highest player in international political system. Classical realism uses human nature to explain to explain the behaviour of states, which is a constant factor. This idea has been challenged because it is not possible to explain a dependent variable with a constant. In addition, classical realism was based on subjective analysis, which was based on the wisdom of an individual, a trend that was later changed with the structural realism (Scheuerman, 2009, p222). Strengths of structural realism Due to the flaws of structural realism, scholars such as Kenneth Waltz attempted to modify the work of their predecessors such as Hans Morgenthau to come up with structural realism (Burchill, 2012, p86). This was done by eschewing classical realism use of essentialist concepts such as ‘human nature’ to explain international relations and instead replaced them with a theory that is based on structural constraints over agents ‘strategies and motivations’. Waltz, desisted from focussing on individual leaders and their individual motivations but instead focussed on the systems within which they act (Donnelly, 2000, p90). Structural realism also takes in to account the fact that states may not act in a morally acceptable way and may cheat in the international system on order for them to gain an advantage over other nations. These fears that other countries may fail to fulfil their end of the bargain in cooperative agreements leads to countries improving their military weaponry which in turn may cause a shift in balance of power. For instance the recent nuclear threats by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea was an example of cheating in international agreement since the country had signed an ‘agreed framework’ with United States of America that required north Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions In maintaining world peace, waltz advocated for the bipolar system in contrast to the multi polar system, which was advocated by classical realists (Robert & Sorensen, 2003, p340). The relevance of this in the current international relations can be traced to the cold war in 1979 where there was a multi polar system and the current bipolar system which has maintained relative global peace since then. Structural realism has managed to keep international relations simple and understandable while at the same time avoiding idealism and normative tendencies, which are not usable in international relations since a state’s action, is determined by the system in which they operate (Lobell, Ripsman & Taliaferro, 2009, p69). Conclusion While classical and structural realism agree on some issues such as the existence of anarchy in international politics and the role of balance of power in international system, they differ on the reasons for origin and the existence of these factors. The structural realism, which is the most preferred to explain international relations after the cold war is an improvement of classical realism which also explains the differences between the two theories as improvements in the former. References Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2010). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press. Behr, H., & Heath, A. 2009. Misreading in IR theory and ideology critique: Morgenthau, Waltz and neo-realism. Review of International Studies, 35(2), 327-49. Booth, K. 2008 ‘Navigating the ‘Absolute Novum’: John H. Herz’s Political Realism and Political Idealism’. International Relations, 22, pp. 510-526. Brown, C. 2009. Structural realism, classical realism and human nature. International relations, 23(2), 257-270. Brown, C. 2012. The ‘Practice Turn’, Phronesis and Classical Realism: Towards a Phronetic International Political Theory?. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 439-456. Brown, C. with Ainley, K. (2005) Understanding International Relations. London: Palgrave. Burchill, S. (2012). Realism and Neo-realism (pp. 70-103). Palgrave. Burchill, S. 2012. Realism and Neo-realism (pp. 70-103). Palgrave. Burchill, S. et. al., 2001. Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave. Cozette, M. 2008. ‘Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship’. Review of International Studies, 34, pp. 5-27. Crawford, R. M. (2013). Idealism and realism in international relations. Routledge. Donnelly, J, 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University press,Cambridge. Forde, S. (2012). Thucydides and ‘realism’among the classics of international relations. Thucydides and the Modern World: Reception, Reinterpretation and Influence from the Renaissance to the Present, 178. Hill, C., & Smith, M. (Eds.). 2011. International relations and the European Union. Oxford University Press. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). 2009. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press. Maliniak et. al., 2007 The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada. Virginia: The College of William and Mary Williamsburg. Mclean, I. & McMillan, A. 2003.Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robert, J. & Sorensen, G, 2003. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scheuerman, W. E. 2009. Hans Morgenthau: realism and beyond. Williams, M. 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. 2007 Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More