First Blog Thomas W

 Thomas White

Professor Shirk

Blog Post 1

September 6th, 2021


Hans Morgenthau’s realist lens is too archaic of a view for today's geopolitical climate, for it to be considered acceptable and viable as a way in which to view international politics. Morgenthau’s claims, which were made over 40 years ago now, have no true standing in the world that is understood today.

Morgenthau paints a picture of a world in anarchy, which is true in a sense, but not holistically, which he claims far too often. He believes, as do many realists, that the world is a set of warring states battling for power due to the human condition. Understood in the eyes of realists is that there are true and inherent laws regarding the interaction between states. Yet, through the works of J. Ann Ticker, and constructivist theory, these ideas do not seem to hold the same weight when put into the context of today's world. The first major issue is that today there are too many actors and actions that are not warring states. Be it multinational corporations, NGO’s, trade deals, or other transnational discussions, the world is not simple enough for Morgenthau’s classic simplistic viewpoint. He seems to hope that by removing the nuance, it would make the concept of international politics simpler. He wants an explanation of why wars and cruelty happens that would be short, neat, and wrapped in a little bow, something that is inherently childish, incorrect, and potentially even a dangerous precedent. Too often do thinkers try to take a complex situation and simplify it, where it results in hurting many people as the multifaceted issues regarding the key problems at hand rear their heads. An example of this is pointed out in the works of Tinker, within her A Feminist Reformulation, in that it doesn’t allow for the complexities of hierarchies to be included. Specifically, she discusses women and the role of masculinity in geopolitics, however any hierarchical natures within the world community are not addressed within the concepts described by Morgenthau. How can the relationship between a post colonial state and its colonizer be simplified into a power struggle, where one state has the power now and the other does not? A post-colonial (and potentially even neocolonial) state is in an inherently worse situation economically than that of a state like Britain, who profited off of and garnered wealth from other nations for centuries. Morgenthau loves his idea that there is no universal moral truth, but it should be universal that these political situations are indeed different and cannot be simplified when attempting to understand them. The power of Britain in the world market as opposed to Nigeria, her former colony, is in fact different, and hierarchical. This is the key issue with the viewpoint of Morgenthau, and why it should not be considered a modern viewpoint today. The understanding today is that hierarchies are and were prevalent in the geopolitical scheme, and that understanding the hierarchies allows for political scientists to much better forecast how states will act, but still cannot predict. Morgenthau in his approach, seems to hold a nihilistic view on the world, something that obviously cannot be disproved, but can  be disagreed with. Within his six point system, Morgenthau described there were no inherent moral truths, but simply natural human phenomena within a political system. Conceding that universal moral truths do not exist, the idea of the animalistic innate human nature is something that must be analyzed and not taken at face value. To begin with, claiming something that is almost scientific in nature without any direct evidence should not be considered. Whether or not humans have innate animalistic instincts does not really matter, as it is simply the tip of the iceberg that is at hand. Taking an analytical approach, it is easily proven that the state system of the 20th, even that of today, that Morgenthau was probing, did not always exist. The empires of Rome and Britain were inherently different from the Kingdoms of feudal Europe and Japan, and were equally as different from the modern ideas of the state that exist today. Today there is bargaining, there are mental relationships (Britain, France, and the USA are allies and it is almost impossible to remove that from those state’s respective psyche's), and there are supranational organizations. The 21st century has peacekeeping missions, it has international pacts regarding the arctic commons, things that most definitely never had existed, and would not have made sense to exist. Morgenthu completely missed it here, as that is what is so important about geopolitics: its dynacism. The state system ten years ago is changed and different from that of today, and clearly different from the dark ages of Europe. 

Comments

  1. Austin W.September 12, 2021 at 9:15 AM

    I was intrigued by your post. I agree with your take that Morgenthau is in the wrong for not understanding dynacism. Also, that realists have a too archaic view to be effective leaders was a very true point. The only thing I am not sure is how you reference your post colonized state as being "less powerful", which is usually true but was not the case for USA and Britain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas WSeptember 13, 2021 at 9:47 AM

      Thanks Austin, you're correct. I should add in a newly post colonial state, within a more globalized world. Thanks!

      Delete
  2. Annabelle VeithSeptember 13, 2021 at 11:50 AM

    Thomas, this is an intriguing post and I appreciate your statement of how complex situations can not be simplified even though that is what tends to happens in politics. As well as this, I like how you backed up your points with different examples including Tickner's article. I would be interested in hearing more about your claim about how Morgenthau approaches "why wars and cruelty happens that would be short, neat, and wrapped in a little bow, something that is inherently childish, incorrect, and potentially even a dangerous precedent". This is an interesting argument, that I believe to be applicable to the present, and would like to hear your take or any examples that come to mind relating to the latter part of the statement.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Thomas White     Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is typically taught as law and inherent to global politics. Often, the theory is misconstrued, something that I myself never fully understood. It is not just that the world will be destroyed if there is another nuclear war; a nuclear war cannot happen due to the resulting chaos. This is typically not emphasized when discussing this theory, as the view gives the impression that the destruction is more key, not the actual peace that results from it. In some ways, this is dangerous, as it misconstrues how people view this idea, and it clouds what should be asked; does the atomic weapon protects us all?     MAD is typically seen in many global theories and politics as an inherent truth, but some believe it should not be considered a fact. There has only been one true international affair that the concept of MAD has acted in, which was the Cold War. There was peace in their states, created by both the USSR and the USA having nuclear w
Read more

Terrorism

  Thomas White Professor Shirk International Politics 11-29-2021 Personal Experience with Terrorism     Terrorism is the greatest threat to immediate security in the 21st century. Defined by the FBI as two different concepts, there is both international and domestic terrorism. In class, international terrorism was obviously discussed more, and that is something that most in the US think less about, both because it less often affects their daily lives and also because the US government does not want to draw attention to actions they take that may be considered international terrorism. Domestic terrorism will be the topic of this Blog Post, both my personal experience with it and how a community can deal with its aftermath.     Terrorism is a concept that is impossible to fully understand until it affects you or someone in your community. Oftentimes, the media creates a narrative of sympathy for victims instead of empathy, where individuals are meant to feel bad for the victims of the t
Read more

Cybersecurity/Warfare

  Thomas White The New Technological Age of Warfare     Throughout this course, warfare was one of the most consequential and influential factors within the International system. As we learned, there’s an entire system of viewing international politics that says war is the most fundamental interaction between states or governmental bodies. This concept, known as realism, is one that I have previously discussed in a blog post, where I attempted to prove why it is an incorrect viewpoint for the 21st century. I discussed how in the modern age there is too much interaction between states that is not driven by war or seeking power. However, this post is meant to be an exercise in arguing the other side and in an atypical lens. Today, as social media has been skyrocketing to unprecedented and previously unimaginable heights, warfare has taken what may be a new look. Two examples of this are TikTok and the Russian SolarWinds hack on the US, both of which are different scenarios with different
Read more