Morgenthau in Context: German Backwardness, German Intellectuals and the Rise and Fall of a Liberal Project
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| Author | Robbie Shilliam |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066107080124 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Morgenthau in Context: German
Backwardness, German Intellectuals and
the Rise and Fall of a Liberal Project
ROBBIE SHILLIAM
University of Oxford, UK
By what criteria might the human condition be considered ‘tragic’? In
this article I argue that historically contextualizing the criteria by which
Morgenthau judged the human condition to be tragic requires a sensitiv-
ity to what might be called the ‘international dimension’ of knowledge
production. Specifically, I argue that Morgenthau’s tragic sense of the
relation between liberal ethics and the reality of politics was constructed
as a reaction to a preceding set of intellectual engagements — exemplified
by the political philosophies of Georg Hegel and Max Weber — with the
perceived ‘backward’ nature of the ‘liberal’ project in Germany in com-
parison to that of republican France and capitalist Britain. Through this
investigation I argue that inter-societal difference is not simply an object
of political theory, but at a deeper level generative in the historical
construction of that thought itself. This argument has implications for
Morgenthau’s recent resurrection as a critical voice on the separation of
ethics and politics in International Relations theory.
KEY WORDS ♦Hegel ♦Liberalism ♦Morgenthau ♦Realism ♦Weber
Introduction1
By what criteria might the human condition be considered ‘tragic’? This is a
question, once directed to Hans Morgenthau by Michael Oakeshott, that
Nicholas Rengger has recently reminded us of.2And it is an important ques-
tion for those who would revive classical Realism, and Morgenthau in particu-
lar, as a resource with which to critically write the ‘normative moment’ back
into the constitution of International Relations (IR) theory. Morgenthau’s
European Journal of International Relations Copyright © 2007
SAGE Publications and ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research, Vol. 13(3): 299–327
[DOI: 10.1177/1354066107080124]
299-328 EJT-80124.qxd 25/7/07 8:36 AM Page 299
special attraction for those who promote this cause has been two-fold. First,
as a ‘godfather’ of the American discipline,3Morgenthau is strategically im-
portant for reformulations of the discipline’s history beyond a battle between
two supposedly dichotomous worldviews — the ethical universalism of Lib-
eralism and the a-moral particularism of Realism.4Second, Morgenthau ap-
pears to be ripe for just such reformulations due to the ambiguous way in
which his intellectual heritage and his own writings map onto the mutually
exclusive nature of Liberalism and Realism popularly presented in text-books
of the discipline.
Of special importance, in this respect, is the reconciliation of Morgenthau
with a European tragic tradition of political thought wherein the human con-
dition is considered to be one of anti-perfection and human action is charac-
terized by hubris.5In this tradition, to act in accordance with a moral principle
is deemed to bring consequences of suffering upon oneself and one’s commu-
nity to the extent that the action undermines the very principle it is designed
to promote. One must therefore avoid crusades of good versus evil because
one’s notion of the ‘good’ can never be universally applicable in thought nor
perfectly realized in practice. By reference to this tradition, Morgenthau can be
reclaimed as a critical and influential German voice in the American academy
on the unbounded optimism of its ‘applied enlightenment’ — the pursuit of a
progressively tighter correspondence between knowledge and action.6And his
apparent a-moral prudence can then be recharacterized as an ethics designed
to remind US foreign policy-makers to acknowledge the hubris associated with
embarking of crusades on ideology and practice.7
Both neo-Realists and liberals, have recently utilized these aspects of
Morgenthau’s political thought to judge the current crusades of the Bush
administration.8But Morgenthau has also been mobilized for more radical
purposes, especially to challenge received understandings of the mutually
exclusive relationship between politics and ethics, as well as scientific analysis
and value-laden prescriptions. For example, the decentring of the sovereign self
that a tragic sensibility requires has led to sympathetic support for Morgenthau
from the post-structural camp (at least in opposition to neo-Realism);9and for
those inspired by the post-colonial position, his critique of the ‘crusading spirit’
is likewise to be admired.10 Of course, an ethics of self-limitation is general
enough to frame any non-crusading prescription, be it conservative, liberal or
radical. Nevertheless, as is always the case with the relationship between ethics
and politics, the devil is in the detail. And to return to Oakeshott’s critique of
Morgenthau, tragedy requires a belief in a specific ethical criteria that informs
judgment on political actions by reference to the possibilities and strictures
inherent in human nature.
It has become more and more accepted that Morgenthau mobilized his
sense of tragedy to develop a sympathetic critique of Liberalism. In this
European Journal of International Relations 13(3)
300
299-328 EJT-80124.qxd 25/7/07 8:36 AM Page 300
To continue reading
Request your trial