Critical Commentary on H. Morgenthau

Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2023

Hans J. Morgenthau's "Politics Among Nations" is a seminal work in the field of international relations that lays out his political realism theory. Morgenthau argues that the international system is characterized by a constant struggle for power and influence among states, and that the pursuit of power and self-interest is the primary driving force behind state behavior. He also stresses the importance of diplomacy in advancing national interests and maintaining the balance of power, as well as the concept of the "national interest" as the primary guiding principle of foreign policy. The statesman also plays a crucial role in Morgenthau's political realism, as he must understand the complexities of the international system and make decisions in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity. In conclusion, Morgenthau's political realism provides a nuanced understanding of international relations and the behaviour of states in the pursuit of power, selfinterest, and national interest.

Realism in politics is a philosophy, which tries to observe, shape and predict political relations. It is based upon the assumption that power should be the primary goal of any political act, both in international or the domestic sphere. As far as domestic affairs are concerned, this theory states that political figures must direct all efforts to maximising their power. In the international sphere the nation should aim to maximize its power over other states. Interests should be satisfied by means of a power exercise, and the world is defined by competing powers This theory can be regarded as a prescription to be followed by politicians and states or as a description of current affairs of the state or politician pursuing self-interest. Realism in politics is often defined as a principle of power supremacy, and it has a long history since the dating back to ancient times. It was reflected in Peloponnesian War by Thucydides; by Machiavelli in his writing The Prince; as well as by other outstanding philosophers like Spinoza, Hobbes and Rousseau. Political realism is explained in the following way: “Prior to the French Revolution in which nationalism as a political doctrine truly entered the world's stage, political realism involved the political jurisdictions of ruling dynasties, whilst in the nineteenth century, nationalist sentiments focused realists' attentions on the development of the nation-state, a policy that was later extended to include imperialist ambitions on the part of the major Western powers-Britain and France, and even Belgium, Germany and the United States were influenced by imperialism (Viotti, Kauppi) .” In the second half of the nineteenth century it was found in social Darwinism who argued that social or political growth is determined by a struggle, in which the strongest parties survive (Ahrensdorf ). The underlying difference between social Darwinism and other branches political realism is the adherent of the former state believe nations are destined to rule over other nations, while others believe the that the nation, culture or politician secures their own needs before needs or interests of others. Political realism in international affairs Political realism suggests that international commonwealth is distinguished by anarchy, since there is no absolute world government that could rule with an all-purpose policy code. Since the anarchy does not need a chaotic nature, it allows member nations to enter into trading treaties. Theorists mostly agree with the Hobb’s theory: "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men (Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 'Of Man', and Part II, Ch.17, 'Of Commonwealth, cited in Griffiths, O’Callaghan)." Respectively, without any supreme international force, nations treat each other with hostility or fear, and it damages the system. There are definite contradictions that can be found in the concept of political realism: descriptive realism may be regarded as a true theory or false concept. Even if it is regarded as a true concept, it does not necessarily mean that morality should be excluded from the principles that rule international policy. One of the strong forms if descriptive type of political realism states that states should be self-seeking, that they should build their policy basing upon desired gains of the nation and should not ignore their interests and demands. Simultaneously, “if descriptive realism is held, it is as a closed theory, which can refute all counter-factual evidence on its own terms (for example, evidence of a nation offering support to a neighbor as an ostensible act of altruism, is refuted by pointing to some self-serving motive the giving nation presumably has--it would increase trade, it would gain an important ally, it would feel guilty if it didn't, and so on), then any attempt to introduce morality into international affairs would prove futile (Stern).” The expressive political realism power depends upon the understanding of political reasons, between state diplomats and representatives. The pattern of officers’ relations, their motives and actions is complex. Waltz (date) says that the closed nature of expressive realism includes an oppose scheme that nations do not serve any needs at all, or can serve the needs of others only. The logical value of the three theories resulting from this concept offers that preferring one condition to another is an optional decision, if an assumption is accepted, or not. (Waltz, The present international sphere of nations’ interaction is defined by the lack of supreme power. In the past, wars were a strong argument in support of political realism – there have been more than 200 wars since the middle of the 17th century. This condition seems to have a chaotic nature, and some thinkers are likely to compare it to domestic anarchy, when state government is not able to rule the state: ‘Without a world power, war, conflict, tension, and insecurity have been the regular state of affairs; just as a domestic government removes internal strife and punishes local crime, so too ought a world government control the activities of individual states-overseeing the legality of their affairs and punishing those nations that break the laws, and thereby calming the insecure atmosphere nations find themselves in (Kegley, Wittkopf) ”. At the same time, such comparison leads to a conclusion that the relations between the state and the individuals are alike. This includes the personification of the states and collectivisation of individuals. Some theorists state that the relations between states and the citizens cannot be compared to the relations between the states and the relations of the individuals, and therefore should be differently judged. In addition to the propositions of descriptive realism, there are notions offered by prescriptive political realism, that a nation should follow its own interests and needs independently of the relevant state of international relations. This theory can be divided into various aspects, depending upon the proclaimed interest of the nation and the availability of the resources that would be used to reach desired goals. As far as the national interest is concerned, believers agree that the state should be self-efficient in economical and political sphere, cutting dependency on other nations (The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations, Year). This economic theory has been used for supporting political realism, especially in the 18th century the theorists of political sphere stated that the political power of the nation is reached and supported in the terms of reduced import and increased export only.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists’ emphasis on power and selfinterest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states.

2000

Realism and International Relations provides students with a critical yet sympathetic survey of political realism in international theory. Using six paradigmatic theories - Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, the Prisoners' Dilemma, Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes - the book examines realist accounts of human nature and state motivation, international anarchy, system structure and the balance of power, international institutions, and morality in foreign policy. Donnelly argues that common realist propositions not only fail to stand up to scrutiny but are rejected by many leading realists as well. He argues that rather than a general theory of international relations, realism is best seen as a philosophical orientation or research program that emphasizes - in an insightful yet one-sided way - the constraints imposed by individual and national egoism and international anarchy. Containing chapter-by-chapter guides to further reading and discussion questions for students, this book ...

Ethics & International Affairs, 2008

The article assessed the relevance of realism in understanding our contemporary world. It looked at the meaning of a theory of international relations and some of the basic ingredients that underpin political realism. Drawing from realist postulations, the article noted that international relations are best understood in the context of power politics. This is because many of the principles that guide realism such as the state, power, balance of power and self-help are visibly present in contemporary international relations. That is not to say, however, that realist postulations have gone unchallenged. The activities of non-state actors and idealist principles are very assertive but do not diminish realists’ postulations. Hence, there can be little doubt that realist theories rightfully retain a salient position in international relations. More fundamentally, it is evident that realism has something to offer to the world it attempts to describe and not a few people will agree with it.

What is politics all about? Realism, as its name suggests, claims to be an approach to international relations theory that captures the real essence of politics. It has been the dominant IR theory over the past several decades, and its proponents like to speak of 'the timeless wisdom of realism'. By looking at some of its intellectual precursors we can try to see why realists make such bold claims.

Journal of Government and Political Issues

This article discusses one of the basic concepts in political science and international relations, namely realism. As a perspective often used to analyze various political phenomena, it is essential to re-understand the concept of realism itself as a whole. This article attempts to provide a clear picture of what realism is meant and explain the history of realism from various realism thinkers. This article reviews the realism concept of 4 characters, namely Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau. This article explains that each thinker has their arguments for explaining realism. Hopefully, this article can provide readers with a complete understanding of realism as a concept or perspective often used in political science.

In this article, I explore recent work on realist political theory and international politics. I discuss how scholarship on the topic emanates from two different fields — International Relations and political philosophy — and argue that there is a good case for greater engagement between them. I open by delineating various kinds of realism, showing that the term covers a wide variety of methodological and political approaches. In particular, I suggest, it is important to recognize the difference between liberal and radical approaches. The remainder of the essay examines assorted examples of realist international political theorizing, work that ranges from attempts to rewrite the canon of 20th century political thought to contributions to the vibrant global justice debates.