freudian roots of political realism: the importance of sigmund freud to hans j. morgenthau’s...

Freudian roots of politicalrealism: the importance ofSigmund Freud to Hans J.

Morgenthau’s theory ofinternational power politics

ROBERT SCHUETT

ABSTRACT

The article unveils the intellectual indebtedness of Hans J. Morgenthau’srealist theory of international power politics to Freudian meta- andgroup psychology. It examines an unpublished Morgenthau essay aboutFreudian anthropology written in 1930, placing this work within thecontext of Morgenthau’s magna opera, the 1946 Scientific Man vs. PowerPolitics and the 1948 Politics among Nations. The article concludes thatMorgenthau’s international theory is ultimately based on the earlyinstinct theory of Sigmund Freud. Freud is thus to be seen as one ofMorgenthau’s intellectual fathers. A second main argument refers to thetheoretical tradition that Morgenthau has founded within InternationalRelations (IR), namely: political realism. By investigating its core prin-ciples, it is argued that realism also may be rooted in Freudian thought.Throughout, the article calls upon IR, Morgenthau scholarship, andinternational-political theory to take Freud seriously.

Key words Sigmund Freud, human nature, international-politicaltheory, Hans Morgenthau, political realism

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES Vol. 20 No. 4© 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) pp. 53–78[20:4; 53–78; DOI: 10.1177/0952695107082491]

by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hhs.sagepub.com/

INTRODUCTION

This article is concerned with International Relations’ (IR’s) most importanttheory: political realism (henceforth: realism).1 It offers two arguments. First,Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–80), German-Jewish émigré to the United Statesand architect of 20th-century realism, constructed his theory of internationalpolitics upon the early instinct theory of Sigmund Freud. Secondly, realismmay have been founded upon Freud’s insights into human nature. A newinterpretation of both Morgenthau’s anthropology, which underpins hisinternational theory, and the philosophical roots of realism is presented. Thisendeavour is also motivated by the fact that Freud has a low profile in IRwhich I believe to be a striking oversight.

IR is a young discipline. Only established in 1919, the first world-wideChair of International Politics was set up at Aberystwyth in reaction to thehorrors of the Great War. IR’s early years (1920s and 1930s) were dominatedby so-called idealists (or utopians or legalists), who held crude balance-of-power politics responsible for the occurrences of war. Idealists such asNorman Angell, Woodrow Wilson2 and Alfred Zimmern thought of bringingabout more peaceful relations among nations by means of international lawand collective security mechanisms, particularly by the League of Nations.Yet, with the failure of the League and the outbreak of the Second World War,the idealist period of IR came to an abrupt halt. Realism became the ortho-doxy in the field, thanks largely to Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations(1967[1948], henceforth Politics), which was published in 1948.

Together with other influential realists (such as Raymond Aron, HerbertButterfield, Edward H. Carr, John Herz, George F. Kennan, Henry Kissinger,Walter Lippmann, Friedrich Meinecke, Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick L.Schuman, Nicholas J. Spykman, Martin Wight and Arnold Wolfers),3 Morgen-thau set out to readjust the discipline: IR must study international relationsas they are – namely, conflictual and driven by power politics – and not aswe would like them to be. Despite the emergence of rival approaches suchas liberalism, constructivism, historical sociology, critical and postmoderntheories (Booth and Smith, 1995; Burchill et al., 2005, Dunne et al., 2007),realism is still the prevailing wisdom in the field. Morgenthau’s Politicsremains the bible of realism; it ran through several editions and has beenhugely influential among postwar academics and policy-makers. Morgenthauis of immense significance to realism and IR. He is IR’s founding father inthe sense that he was one of the first to present a comprehensive theory ofinternational politics. Moreover, Morgenthau was the architect of modern20th-century realism.4 By architect it is meant that from Morgenthau’s Politicsthe three realist core approaches, namely, structural realism, human-naturerealism and neo-classical realism, have emerged.5 Robert Keohane rightlypoints out: contemporary realism in all its variants (and the discipline IR

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)54



itself) cannot be ‘understood without some comprehension of Morgenthau’sattempt to construct a theory of international politics’ (Keohane, 1986: 10).

All forms of pre-modern and modern realism adhere to three basic assump-tions. First, relations among nations are intrinsically conflictual. Secondly,political life is organized around groups, whether it is tribes, city-states,nation-states, etc. Thirdly, human nature strives for power and security(Gilpin, 1986: 304–5). Morgenthau is no exception. He stresses these timelessfeatures of world politics throughout all his writings and is especiallyconcerned with the role human nature takes on in that process. At the verybeginning of his Politics, Morgenthau emphasizes that ‘politics, like society ingeneral, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature’(1967: 4). He constructs his theory of international politics upon a certain viewof human nature. However, except for saying so, he remains rather vague inPolitics about anthropology. Although human nature is an important themein Morgenthau’s thought, the anthropology he employs has never beenadequately understood – and, mistakenly, has often been disparaged.

In order to reveal this significant dimension of Morgenthau’s realist theoryand to gain important insights into his actual beliefs about the nature ofman, I will examine Morgenthau’s important manuscript essay ‘Ueber dieHerkunft des Politischen aus dem Wesen des Menschen [On the Derivationof the Political from the Nature of Man]’ (1930b; henceforth ‘Freud Script’)and his Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946; henceforth Scientific Man).Scientific Man and Politics are Morgenthau’s magna opera. The ‘Freud Script’,on the contrary, is less well known. It was written by the young Morgenthauwhile still in Frankfurt in 1930, in his formative years between his doctorate(1929) and Habilitation (1934). Presently only available in an archivalversion,6 the ‘Freud Script’ has never been published in the original Germannor been translated into any other language.7 About 100 pages in length, themanuscript runs to 12 sections,8 in which Morgenthau attempts to derive thenature of the political from a Freudian anthropology. By tracing back howMorgenthau’s theory of international politics was informed by the ‘FreudScript’ and Scientific Man, I will show how important Freud was for Morgen-thau. My interpretation of Morgenthau’s anthropology as being essentiallyFreudian is rather innovative and has two aims: first, to offer an improvedunderstanding of the philosophical roots of Morgenthau; secondly, to raiseFreud’s profile in IR to an appropriate level as his intellectual impact on someearly IR realists seems to have been forgotten. Unfortunately, IR, Morgen-thau scholarship and international-political theory have almost neglectedFreud completely.

Fortunately, the last few years have seen a remarkable reappearance ofinterest in Morgenthau’s thought, mainly driven by the discontent which(allegedly more) scientific, often game-theoretical-styled IR theories havecaused among some IR theorists. This has helped to produce an increasingly

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 55



sophisticated body of literature on the origins and development of Morgen-thau’s thinking, which, importantly, also sheds light on the development ofIR as an academic discipline itself – not to mention 20th-century politicalrealism. In this process, all sorts of intellectual family trees for Morgenthauhave been drawn. It has been shown in great detail that Morgenthau wasinfluenced by thinkers such as Aristotle, Hans Kelsen, Abraham Lincoln,Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Hugo Sinzheimer, theSophists and Max Weber.9 Kelsen, Niebuhr, Nietzsche, Schmitt and Weberare the usual suspects – and, as will be taken up again below, each of themcan be linked to Freud. G. O. Mazur speaks of Niebuhr and Kelsen as ‘themost direct influences upon Morgenthau’ (Mazur, 2004a: 5). Freud, however,is hardly mentioned in existing Morgenthau literature. This does justice toneither Freud nor Morgenthau. My reading of Morgenthau is different.Although these conventional intellectual cross-links (Kelsen, Niebuhr,Nietzsche, Schmitt, Weber, etc.) might not be mistaken, they need to be eithersuperseded or at least complemented by the distinct Freudian elements inMorgenthau’s thought.

IR has also ignored Freud. This places the discipline in a rather peculiarposition. Anthropology, biology, economics, jurisprudence, literary theory,medicine, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology and theology haveall attempted to come to terms with the implications of Freud’s psychoana-lytical insights; they have all fought their own Freud Wars. Yet IR, despite anincreasing interest in the discipline’s intellectual history and its ontological,methodological and epistemological foundations, has undervalued Freud’ssignificance for 20th-century IR. We might detect three reasons for this dis-regard of Freud. First, in one of IR’s classical works, Man, the State, and War(2001[1959]), Kenneth Waltz suggested three explanatory levels, i.e. images,where the causes of war traditionally have been sought. He argued that someexplained war by human nature (first-image theorists such as Morgenthau),some by the internal constitution of the states (second-image theorists suchas Kant), and others by the structure of the state system (third-image theor-ists such as Rousseau). Yet, surprisingly, given Waltz’s critique of dozens anddozens of political philosophers and theorists, behaviouralists and essayistsof any sort and any epoch, he mentions Freud on only four, rather trivialoccasions (2001: 69, 71, 187).

In addition to Freud’s being left out of one of IR’s constitutive works, thereis a second reason why he has been avoided so persistently. Freud occasion-ally does make it into IR textbooks and his ‘Why War?’ (1933) is evenconsidered as one of IR’s basic texts (see Luard, 1992). However, Freud’s isa Pyrrhic victory. The preoccupation with this (in)famous Einstein letterexchange is part of the problem. Freud’s life-work roughly amounts to 20volumes,10 thus this 13-page letter can hardly be the reference point forassessing Freud’s value for IR. In fact, it is the wrong choice altogether: Freud




overtly admitted that he was bored with this exchange; he was not expectinga Nobel Peace Prize for this ‘sterile so-called discussion with Einstein’(quoted in Jones, 1957: 187). The letter is, as Ian Forbes comments, ‘in manyways peculiarly unsatisfying’ (1984: 16). Focusing on ‘Why War’ has signifi-cantly contributed to the quantitatively and qualitatively poor reception ofFreud in IR and international-political theory (exceptions include Elshtain,1989; Maffettone, 2005).

A third cause for IR’s neglect of Freud derives from Morgenthau himself.He expressed his verdict on Freud in his autobiography (1978). Morgenthausays: Yes, I was interested in psychoanalysis, have played with Freudianconcepts but I soon realized ‘the impossibility of accounting for the complex-ities and varieties of political experience with the simplicities of a reduction-ist theory’ (1978: 67). Again, nothing positive about Freud. And even worse,Morgenthau’s comment on Freud is readily cited in IR and Morgenthauliterature. It needed magic arts to eradicate Morgenthau’s words from hisautobiography. Still, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Freud had aprofound impact on Morgenthau’s thought.

The task of painting Morgenthau as a Freudian who constructed his theoryof international politics upon Freud’s early instinct theory will proceed intwo steps. The next section deals with Morgenthau’s view of man as foundin both his ‘Freud Script’ and Scientific Man. I will interpret Morgenthau’santhropology as a cohesive dualistic instinct theory which follows Freud’searly instinct configuration, distinguishing between ego instinct and sexualinstinct. In the subsequent section, I will be concerned with examining howMorgenthau’s Freudian anthropology influenced his Politics. I will argue thatFreud’s conception of identification and his group psychology are essentialingredients to Morgenthau’s international thought. My analysis of Morgen-thau’s ‘Freud Script’, Scientific Man and Politics – three interrelated works inwhich can be found the kernel of Morgenthau’s indebtedness to Freud –will prepare the ground for the conclusion that it is more than likely that20th-century realism was founded upon Freud’s anthropology. It needs to bepointed out that this article neither evaluates whether Freud himself intel-lectually fits into the realist paradigm nor examines whether Morgenthauwould have reached different conclusions regarding his international theory ifhe had read Freud differently. I will now turn to Morgenthau’s anthropology,arguing that it is fundamentally based on Freud’s early instinct theory.

MORGENTHAU’S ANTHROPOLOGY: HUNGERAND LOVE MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND

For an understanding of Morgenthau’s view of human nature his ScientificMan needs to be examined. It was written in 1946, two years before the




publication of Politics, and Morgenthau harshly attacks the prevailing wisdomof the time. Pessimistic and negative in tone, this book is a fundamentalrejection of crude behavioural scientism, liberal Enlightenment rationalism,pacifism and other liberal chimeras. It contains an interesting reference toFreud. Morgenthau applauds Freud for having ‘rediscovered the autonomyof the dark and evil forces which, as manifestations of the unconscious, deter-mine the fate of man’ (1946: 175). At first sight, this avowal seems to comeout of nowhere since Morgenthau hardly ever mentions Freud in his writings.Although Morgenthau’s praise for Freud is the first step in the right direc-tion, a problem is immediately encountered: Reinhold Niebuhr. But beforedeveloping this point further, I need to dissect Morgenthau’s anthropologyto help interpret it as Freudian. It suffices to focus on two characteristics ofMorgenthau’s ‘man’: first, man is essentially selfish; secondly, man is drivenby a lust for power, which Morgenthau (in)famously referred to as animusdominandi. It does no harm to refer to these two properties as instincts.

Man cannot escape being selfish; he strives for food, shelter, and security.As a result, ‘individual egotisms, all equally legitimate, confront each other’,Morgenthau reasons, ‘and the war of every man against every man is on’(1946: 164). The instinct of selfishness is rather straightforward whereas theanimus dominandi is not. One might be already tempted to guess where thestory will lead. Yet Morgenthau’s anthropology must not be interpreted interms of a Hobbesian survival logic. The animus dominandi stems not fromman’s inborn desire for survival but is a different independent instinct. Thelust for power ‘concerns itself not with the individual’s survival but with hisposition among his fellows once his survival has been secured’ (1946: 165).When Morgenthau acknowledges man’s desire to either maintain, increase,or demonstrate power – which leads to a nation’s policy of either maintain-ing the status quo, imperialism, or prestige, respectively, as laid out in Politics– we must recognize the distinctive quality of the animus dominandi. Manvigorously seeks, strives, longs and yearns for power. The animus dominandidoes not derive from immediate survival concerns; man lusts for power in thesense of Freud’s pleasure principle. This concept of human nature is put forthin the 7th chapter of Scientific Man. What sounds fairly irrelevant is, in fact,not. In the notes, Morgenthau writes that the ‘subject matter of this chapterhas been most illuminatingly treated in the books of Reinhold Niebuhr’(1946: 200). This might have partly contributed to the understanding thatMorgenthau’s anthropology underlying his realist international thought wassomewhat Niebuhrian. However, there is a kernel of truth in ChristophFrei’s (1994)11 argument that Niebuhr’s influence on Morgenthau is grosslyoverstated. According to Frei, Morgenthau was trying to hide his Germanpolitical-theoretical roots and, therefore, used Niebuhr’s language to makehis own (according to my reading, Freudian) points. Morgenthau saw inNiebuhr an ally on the American continent (1994: 114). Yet, whereas Frei is




convinced that Morgenthau’s actual intellectual father was Nietzsche, I arguethat Freud distinctively shaped Morgenthau. This will be verified when wecompare Morgenthau’s instinct theory of Scientific Man with the anthropol-ogy of the ‘Freud Script’ which we will now refer to. The ‘Freud Script’ isMorgenthau’s attempt to make use of Freudian ideas. We need to examinehow Morgenthau experimented with Freud. It will be shown how closelyMorgenthau follows Freud’s early instinct theory.

Man is driven by two distinct primary instincts: the instinct of self-preservation (Selbsterhaltungstrieb) and the instinct of self-assertion(Bewaehrungstrieb). This dualistic conception corresponds to the instinct ofselfishness and the animus dominandi, respectively – the language of Scien-tific Man. The instinct of self-preservation signifies our longing for survivaland is best expressed in archaic man’s immediate strive for nourishment. Italso represents modern man’s yearning for money on which the sufficientsupply of food depends. While the instinct of self-preservation is largely aninward or self-centred affair, the instinct of self-assertion is directed outwards,to others. Man is inclined to demonstrate what he is capable of – either byimpressing the opposite sex, by expressing himself through arts and sciences,or by participating in war and sports contests. For only then can man experi-ence what it means to be alive and to live. It suffices to bring out the analo-gies to Freud’s instinct theory: Morgenthau’s instinct of self-preservationfollows Freud’s ego instinct; the former’s instinct of self-assertion follows thelatter’s sexual instinct. Ernest Jones (1957) called Freud an obstinate dualist– rightly, as Freud recognized from the very beginning the opposed forceswithin man’s mind, i.e. Freud’s instinct dualism. Morgenthau adheres to theearly Freud. His instinct theory does not acknowledge Freud’s death instinct,the (in)famous Thanatos. Morgenthau does not employ Freud’s dichotomyof Eros and Thanatos but sticks to the earlier distinction. Freud’s ego instinctor self-preservative instinct longs for survival, typically exemplified bystriving for food. His sexual instinct primarily seeks pleasure which is notsolely confined to the reproductive organs. Succinctly, Freud continuouslyreferred to the ego instinct and sexual instinct as hunger and love, respec-tively: ‘I took as my starting-point a saying of the poet-philosopher, Schiller,that “hunger and love are what moves the world”’ (1930: 117). Now, compareMorgenthau:

If the striving for the preservation of one’s life arises from a deficiency,it is, figuratively speaking, a child of hunger – it seeks to compensate fora lack of energy. Analogously, the effort to make good a surplus of energyseeking a release finds, again speaking metaphorically, in love one of itsmost characteristic expressions. The appearance of love correspondsboth in the narrower physiological sense as well as in the more compre-hensive meaning of Eros to the striving to prove oneself. (1930b: 4–5)12




Morgenthau could hardly be more explicit in deriving his instinct of self-preservation from Freud’s ego instinct and his instinct of self-assertion fromFreud’s sexual instinct. Moreover, we can identify two additional debtsto Freud’s instinct theory. First, following Freud’s instinct dualism, the twoinstincts are necessarily independent of each other and stand in fierce oppo-sition. Secondly, following Freud’s pleasure principle, only the instinct ofself-assertion, and not the instinct of self-preservation, is rooted in man’sinborn desire for pleasure. Thus, we might well argue that Morgenthau’santhropology of the ‘Freud Script’ stems from Freud’s pre-Thanatos instincttheory.

Morgenthau considered his use of Freud’s work as an ill-fated attemptwhich he ‘did not even try to publish’ (1978: 67). Yet this is only half thestory. The script was, in fact, never published but large parts of it were reusedin the 7th chapter of Scientific Man. Morgenthau’s Freudian dualistic instincttheory, as developed in 1930, is identical with his conception of human natureas proposed in Scientific Man – only the labels are altered.

Starting from the analyses of the instinct theories of 1930 and 1946, I amnow in the position to amalgamate the instinct of self-preservation with theinstinct of selfishness. As shown above, both are, to use Morgenthau’s words,a child of hunger, which long for survival. It is only a matter of rhetoric howthey are referred to; they are completely identical. Morgenthau sticks to the‘Freud Script’ and it can be concluded that Scientific Man’s instinct of self-ishness is basically Freud’s ego instinct. Now, it is necessary to mergeMorgenthau’s instinct of self-assertion with his animus dominandi. I willconclude that the lust for power essentially follows Freud’s sexual instinct;to arrive at this conclusion, we need to go back briefly to the instinct of self-assertion.

I have already unearthed the pleasure-seeking nature of the instinct of self-assertion, which was identified as being identical with Freud’s sexual instinct.Morgenthau, entirely in Freudian fashion, points out that the objects inwhich the instinct of self-assertion can find gratification are manifold (1930b:25–6). Morgenthau adopts from Freud the possibility for the instinct to directitself towards various objects. Yet, the key for merging the instinct of self-assertion with the animus dominandi, and, then, to interpret them as Freud’ssexual instinct is the social nature which underlies all three. The instincts’social nature, taken together with the pleasure principle and the object-basedcharacter of instinct gratification, not only again illustrates Morgenthau’suniversal adherence to Freud but sheds light on the Freudian character ofthe animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau, dominating others bringsmaximum satisfaction of the instinct of self-assertion (1930b: 43). This meansthat man needs another man, a social relationship, in order to comply withthe demands of the pleasure principle. Hence, the animus dominandi is themost important manifestation of the instinct of self-assertion. It is thoroughly




Freudian, since the latter had already been clearly identified as Freud’s sexualinstinct.

Thus far, I have proceeded backwards chronologically: from the 1948Politics back to the Scientific Man of 1946 and then back to the 1930 ‘FreudScript’. In reverse: Morgenthau constructs a Freudian anthropology in 1930;the instinct of self-preservation is identical with Freud’s ego instinct, and theinstinct of self-assertion stands for Freud’s sexual instinct. This dualisticFreudian instinct theory makes its way into Morgenthau’s authoritative state-ment on human nature of 1946. The instinct of selfishness is rooted in Freud’sego instinct and the animus dominandi stems from Freud’s sexual instinct.Initially, I conclude that Morgenthau’s anthropology is fundamentally basedupon Freud’s early instinct theory and it may be safely said that Morgenthauis a veiled Freudian. This raises two questions. Can Freudian traces be foundin the international theory of Politics? Why did Morgenthau turn to Freud inthe first place? The answers are intertwined: in 1930 Morgenthau soughtFreud’s help to put an end to international legalism and to lay the foundationsfor a realist international theory. I will now turn to the first question: Morgen-thau adheres to his Freudian instinct theory in Politics; he uses Freud’s conceptof identification to link man’s animus dominandi to a nation’s desire for power.

INTERNATIONAL POWER POLITICS AND THEANALYSIS OF THE EGO

Morgenthau is certain that ‘[i]nternational politics, like all politics, is a strugglefor power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is theimmediate aim’ (1967: 25). Any policy, domestic or international, eitherseeks to keep power (policy of the status quo), to increase power (policy ofimperialism), or to demonstrate power (policy of prestige) – the ‘struggle forpower is universal in time and space’ (ibid.: 30–1). Morgenthau anticipatescriticism for deducing the ubiquity of nations’ power-struggle from pastexperience; he concedes that certain social arrangements will not necessarilylast long just because they have survived through the history of mankind. Yetwe must look not towards social arrangements but – here again comes hisFreudian instinct theory – to the ‘elemental bio-psychological drives’ bywhich these are created. Morgenthau defines these drives as the instincts ‘tolive, to propagate, and to dominate’ which are ‘common to all men’ (ibid.: 31).The instincts to live and to propagate refer to the instinct of self-preservation(‘Freud Script’) or the instinct of selfishness (Scientific Man) or Freud’s egoinstinct. The instinct to dominate refers to the animus dominandi (ScientificMan) as the most important manifestation of the instinct of self-assertion(‘Freud Script’) or Freud’s sexual instinct. Morgenthau’s Freudian instincttheory has certainly influenced Politics. From here on, I will be mostly




concerned with the animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau its univer-sality cannot be wished away. The lust for power is encountered in all socialrelations on all levels.

Thus far, Morgenthau has merely told us that international dilemmas areultimately rooted in man; that they originate in man’s two instincts, especi-ally in the lust for power. It will be argued below that Morgenthau’smethodological individualism stems from Freud. Now, we consider Morgen-thau’s explanation of how man’s instincts translate into a nation’s lust forpower. I will argue that Morgenthau’s reasoning is unreservedly Freudian.Morgenthau proceeds in two steps: first, he follows Freud in recognizingsociety’s demand for instinctual renunciation; secondly, he employs Freud’sconcept of identification to link man’s lust for power with a nation’s lust forpower. Man cannot do as he wishes; the demands society puts upon him aretoo great. Morgenthau sees that man is confronted with a ‘network of rulesof conduct and institutional devices’, which either ‘divert individual powerdrives into channels where they cannot endanger society, or else they weakenthem or suppress them altogether’. The consequences are harsh: man cannotsatisfy his instincts. Thus, man (i.e. his ego) is seeking other channels in whichto find gratification; he might project his unsatisfied instincts onto competi-tive examinations, sports, or fraternal organizations and so forth (1967: 98).This is sufficient to detect Morgenthau’s indebtedness to Freud.

Morgenthau follows one of Freud’s central tenets which was most force-fully laid out in ‘Civilizations and its Discontents’ (1930): the irreconcilableantagonism between the demands of the instincts on one hand, and society’sover-arching demands for instinctual suppression on the other. Following onfrom the incompatibility of man and civilization, Morgenthau agrees withFreud that we are, in a sense, anti-social and anti-cultural beings. Yet, secondly,Morgenthau not only recognizes this antagonism but also speaks of channelsinto which man’s unsatisfied instincts can be diverted. Here, ‘channels’ mighteasily be replaced with Freud’s terminology. Morgenthau is thinking ofFreud’s defence-mechanisms: the ego brokers between the demands of theinstinctual id and the demands of the societal super-ego; by employing copingstrategies, the ego aims at reducing the tensions caused by instinct suppres-sion. This leads to Morgenthau’s third indebtedness to Freud. By recognizingthe oppressive demands of civilization upon man, appreciating that this causesmental disturbances, and allowing for man to divert those unsatisfied instinctsonto other objects, Morgenthau endorses, albeit implicitly, Freud’s structuraltheory of the mind, as expressed in Freud’s ‘The Ego and the Id’ (1923).Morgenthau’s use of Freud’s tripartite division of the mind is also evidentwhen considering his second step in which the animus dominandi is beinglinked to the nation’s desire for power. Morgenthau brings into play Freud’sconcept of identification and adheres to Freud’s group psychology. Morgen-thau suggests channels in which the animus dominandi finds gratification; yet




he is mostly concerned with a very distinctive channel. Again, Morgenthaupoints out that individuals cannot satisfy their instinctual needs withinnational boundaries. Therefore, men (their egos) ‘project those unsatisfiedaspirations onto the international scene’; there, they ‘find vicarious satis-faction in identification with the power drives of the nation’ (1967: 98). Thisis clearly taken from Freud. Morgenthau reasons – and this completes thestep from man’s animus dominandi to the nation’s desire for power – thatthe ‘power our representatives wield on the international scene becomes ourown, and the frustrations we experience within the national community arecompensated for by the vicarious enjoyment of the power of the nation’(1967: 99). What Morgenthau refers to as frustrations, is simply a product ofa Freudian reasoning: being a member of a group – a race, nation, caste,profession, or any other institution – man cannot individually act in accordwith the pleasure principle and pursue his lust for power. In ‘Group Psychol-ogy and the Analysis of the Ego’ (1921; henceforth ‘Group Psychology’),Freud pointed out man’s solution to this dilemma: identification, i.e. theunification with the object of pleasure or rather with the subject who can actout the suppressed instincts. What is forbidden for the individual within anation can be pursued as a nation, or rather by its representatives; on theinternational sphere, there are no societal restrictions. According to Freud(and Morgenthau), man identifies himself with the power-pursuing repre-sentatives, that is, ultimately the powerful nation, in order to satisfy his lustfor power. Via the process of identification, man has a share in the power ofthe nation; he becomes powerful himself. Man satisfies his lust for powerinternationally while he abides by the rules domestically. That is the trickMorgenthau learns from Freud. Morgenthau’s Politics is infused with Freudianideas and concepts. Here and in Scientific Man, works which had a majorimpact on political theory and IR, can be discovered the influences of Freud.Now I come to my last question: Why did Morgenthau begin to make useof Freud’s works in 1930? I have already shown how the ‘Freud Script’ influ-enced Scientific Man and Politics. There is one important theme left which isessential for Morgenthau’s theory of international politics: methodologicalindividualism.

I need briefly to place the ‘Freud Script’ in its historio-biographical context.This will enable us to grasp its significance for Morgenthau. As mentionedearlier, the script was written between his doctorate and his Habilitation. Hisdoctoral thesis was largely concerned with enquiring into the limited applic-ability of the judicial function in international relations. This may soundmore tedious than it actually was: its theme was the starting point of Morgen-thau’s lifelong attack on international legalism. Morgenthau was trying to getto the bottom of the link between law and politics; he attempted to explainwhy international law was such a fragile institution. Morgenthau remem-bers: ‘I now discovered that the main source of its weakness stems from the




intrusion of international politics. From that discovery there was but onestep to the conclusion that what really mattered in international relations wasnot international law but international politics’ (1978: 65). The legalists,according to Morgenthau, failed to recognize the distinctive political elementoperating between nations; they walked into the same traps as most repre-sentatives of German Staatsrechtslehre prevailing at that time. Consequently,German state-legal theory became the victim of Morgenthau’s attack (1932).He criticized legal positivists such as Paul Laband, Georg Jellinek and HansKelsen as well as other state theorists such as Erich Kaufmann, Rudolf Smendand Carl Schmitt. Morgenthau’s main accusation against them was that theywere essentially unrealistic about the nature of the state and, when being real-istic, they failed to see that the roots of the state and politics rest with(in) man.The origins must be sought in human nature, and Morgenthau demanded amore realistic, psychologically grounded theory of the state (Frei, 1994: 122–5,Koskenniemi, 2006: 166–7). The ‘Freud Script’ is his own attempt. Kelsen willprovide further important insights for our endeavour to show not only thatMorgenthau was a veiled Freudian, but that Freudian thoughts lie at the heartof his realist international theory.

Kelsen, founder of the Viennese school of law, also came under Morgen-thau’s fire. The point of attack was Kelsen’s idea of the purity of law, a themeexpressed most fully in the Pure Theory of Law (1967). Kelsen’s theoryattempts ‘to free the science of law from all foreign elements’; this is its ‘funda-mental methodological principle’. These foreign elements are easily identified:psychology, sociology, biology, ethics, political theory, and theology. He criti-cizes how uncritically some quarters of 19th- and 20th-century jurisprudencehave become mixed up with these alien elements (1967: 477). Essential toKelsen’s pure theory of law, is his denial that law and the state are two differ-ent entities; it abolishes the dualism of law and state. Kelsen argues that thestate, as a social order, is inevitably identical with the law and they both amal-gamate into a mere system of ought-propositions, i.e. norms. For Morgenthau,approaching the nature of the state in this fashion is utterly unrealistic; hedoes not want anxiously to go down on his knees before reality. Therefore,he turns to Freud. Kelsen also turned to Freud; like Morgenthau, he was amethodological individualist. Enquiring into Kelsen’s relationship to Freudwill help demonstrate that Freud was an ideal helper for Morgenthau. Kelsenturned to Freud to seek an ally against Marxism and sociological-structuralmodes of thought; the state was a system of norms, but it was not an empiri-cal entity – in Politics Morgenthau follows Kelsen’s latter claim.

Throughout his life, Kelsen was attracted to Freudian psychoanalysis(Jabloner, 1998). Though Kelsen’s intellectual debts to Freud are substantial,my concern here is with Kelsen’s Imago article ‘The Conception of the Stateand Social Psychology, with special reference to Freud’s Group Theory’(1922).13 Kelsen asked whether Freud’s group psychology is of use for




conceptualizing the nature of the state. He concludes it is not, but this is ofperipheral concern. The important point lies elsewhere. Kelsen and Morgen-thau exactly affirm the argument with which Freud began his crusadeagainst contemporary social psychology and sociology – namely: there is nodistinction between individual and social psychology. They endorse Freud’sreasoning that there is no such thing as a group mind; explaining groupbehaviour must have its starting point in the mind of man. Kelsen attacksÉmile Durkheim, the protagonist of a movement that treats collectives associal facts. To Kelsen, such an approach is nothing but naïve self-delusion.Morgenthau agrees.

In Group Psychology Freud points out that to understand group behav-iour we must understand man: social psychology is necessarily individualpsychology. For Freud, individual psychology concerns itself with the indi-vidual man and explores the means by which he finds instinctual satisfaction.Yet, in man’s psyche, others are unavoidably involved – parents, brothers andsisters, objects of love, etc.; these relations are of greatest significance to man.Contemporary social psychology has, according to Freud, made a mistake as‘it has become usual to leave these relations on one side and to isolate as thesubject of inquiry the influencing of an individual by a large number of peoplesimultaneously, people with whom he is connected by something, thoughotherwise they may in many respects be strangers to him’ (1921: 70). Thus,social psychology concerned itself with the individual as being a member ofany organized group. It is therefore entirely understandable to Freud, thoughnot correct, that we have assumed the existence of a special instinct, a sort ofsocial instinct, herd instinct, or group mind. Is it sensible to think of a socialinstinct which is rooted in the group and not in man? According to Freud,and Kelsen and Morgenthau alike, certainly not. The group must be studiedthrough its parts, through the individual psyche of man. All agree: there isno such thing as the state. Though Kelsen mistakenly accuses Freud ofreifying the group, Freud clearly rejects hypostatizations of the state.Morgenthau does so too and makes it very clear in Politics: a nation is‘obviously not an empirical thing’ but an ‘abstraction from a number of indi-viduals’ (1967: 97). Morgenthau’s claim ultimately derives from the ‘FreudScript’, and it answers the question why he turned to Freud in the first place.

Morgenthau’s manuscript title signifies his endeavour: to derive the conceptof the political from human nature. Morgenthau tells us how we ought toapproach the state and the political element operating within it: ‘We have noother access to knowledge of social structures than through individualbeings. All data which we call political lead to the soul of man as conveyorof Politics and knowledge of man’s nature is the key to Politics’ (1930b: 4).To gain knowledge of man’s nature, Morgenthau turned to Freud. I haveshown in the preceding section just how Freudian Morgenthau’s instincttheory is, and how it fuels Scientific Man and Politics. However, he was not




only looking for an anthropology in Freud, but also sought Freud’s help toconstruct his psychologically grounded theory of the state which informs hisrealist theory of international relations. In summary, I feel justified in arguingthat Morgenthau’s realism is founded upon Freudian roots.

CONCLUSION: MANY REALISMS – ANDFREUDIAN ROOTS?

Hans J. Morgenthau’s lifetime fell in a period of great upheaval and unrest,domestically and internationally. As a contemporary, academic and policyconsultant, Morgenthau not only experienced the Great War (certainly itsaftermath), the Nazi threat and the Second World War, but also Vietnam14

and the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, as Fred Halliday succinctly puts it, theworks of realists such as Morgenthau ‘did not emerge simply from reflec-tions in a library’ (1995: 40). Morgenthau died over 25 years ago and IR(theory) as well as international relations (practice) have both moved on. Still,Morgenthau’s Politics is one of IR’s most important textbooks and Morgen-thau remains one of the most important IR theorists. Given his status as thefounder of 20th-century realism and his influence on the development ofthe field, the unveiling of Morgenthau’s Freudian roots has been a task worthpursuing in its own right. I have shown in great detail what signifies Morgen-thau’s indebtedness to Freud and, in order to avoid repetition, I will save themain points of connection between these two thinkers for later.

Earlier in this article I referred to current Morgenthau scholarship and itsattempt to link Morgenthau to Hans Kelsen, Reinhold Niebuhr, FriedrichNietzsche, Carl Schmitt and Max Weber. I have offered a different reading ofMorgenthau’s international theory, which takes into consideration the distinc-tively Freudian elements of his thought. Consequently, my interpretation ofMorgenthau’s view of human nature calls for redrawing his intellectual familytree. Freud is one of Morgenthau’s intellectual fathers. Yet, Morgenthau seemsnot to have been very willing to accept him. This may sound like crude laypsychoanalysis or something like that; however, John Maynard Keynes hasshown that eschewing Freud publicly (as done by Morgenthau in his auto-biography) but drawing from him privately, so to speak, was commonpractice. According to Ted Winslow (1986), Keynes made extensive use ofpsychoanalytical insights in his economic theory. Yet, Winslow (1989) alsopointed out that Keynes was very aware that it was best not to talk about hisFreudian roots while among professional economists. It is well known thatFreud was the ‘genius, founder, master, a giant among the makers of themodern mind’ to only a small minority, whereas, to the majority, he was the‘autocrat, plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans’ (Gay, 1988:4). Coming back to Morgenthau: he was using Niebuhr as an ally on the




American continent. However, he was not, as Frei (1994) argues, trying todisguise Nietzsche – but Freud. I will now demonstrate that it was possiblefor Morgenthau to substitute Niebuhr for Freud.

Morgenthau constructed his theory of international politics upon the earlyinstinct theory of Freud. I have shown how the ‘Freud Script’ of 1930, inwhich Morgenthau experimented with Freudian ideas in order to derive theconcept of the political from human nature, has influenced Morgenthau’sScientific Man, whose anthropology made its way into his magnum opus, the1948 Politics. Referring to anthropology only might be misleading in thesense that it does not do full justice to the extent Morgenthau was influencedby Freud. It is not only man’s dualistic instinct configuration that looms largein Morgenthau’s international theory. Moreover, in Politics the use of largeparts of Freudian meta- and group psychology can be seen.

In addition, it may be argued that Freud’s impact on Morgenthau was morethan significant and not solely confined to Morgenthau’s international theory.Freud shaped Morgenthau in his formative years and Morgenthau remainedinterested in Freud throughout his life. In 1930 Morgenthau wrote the ‘FreudScript’ and an essay on German pacifism and the new war philosophy of ErnstJuenger, in which he invokes Freud’s theory of sublimation (Koskenniemi,2006: 164–5; see Morgenthau, 1930a). In a book review of 1940, Morgenthauwonders how the author, N. S. Timasheff, could possibly write an introduc-tion to the sociology of law without even mentioning the name of Freud(1940: 1511). Of course, Morgenthau, as a student of law, knew how influen-tial Freud had been in law circles at that time (besides Kelsen, see, for instance,Jerome Frank’s Law and the Modern Mind, 1930) – and still is (Caudill, 1990;Ehrenzweig, 1971; West, 1986). Also in the 1940s, Morgenthau publishedboth Scientific Man and Politics, works with clear-cut evidence of Freudianelements. About 15 years later, Morgenthau wrote an essay on the relation-ship between love and power (1962), in which, as Sean Molloy noted, the‘Freudian aspect of Morgenthau’s interpretation of power is best expressed’(2004: 16, n. 38). And only two years before his death, Morgenthau published,together with the psychoanalyst Ethel Spector Person,15 an essay on the rootsof narcissism (1978). Clearly, one of Morgenthau’s intellectual fathers wasSigmund Freud.

Morgenthau is the founding father not only of IR but also of 20th-centuryrealism. This begs the question whether 20th-century realism itself mighthave its philosophical roots in Freud. I will answer with a cautious ‘Yes’. InWaltzian terms, Morgenthau is a first-image theorist; to those theorists, ‘Theroot of all evil is man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war’(Waltz, 2001: 3). Earlier I pointed to the variety of realist approaches in thefield; however, all the different forms of realist approaches in IR orbit aroundthe same three basic assumptions: first, international relations are conflictual;secondly, political life is organized around groups; thirdly, human nature




longs for power and security. For realists, these three features of internationalaffairs are timeless and they represent their core beliefs. Based on my exam-ination of Morgenthau’s anthropology in the context of his theory of inter-national politics, it might well be argued that 20th-century realism is basedon Freudian thought.

Central to Morgenthau’s anthropology is the instinct of selfishness and theanimus dominandi. I have shown how this dualistic instinct theory exactlyfollows the early Freud, who distinguished between an ego instinct and sexualinstinct, respectively. It is one of the realists’ central tenets to acknowledgein man an inherent desire for power and security. Security refers to man’sinnate longing to preserve his self and his life, which can be interpreted asFreud’s ego instinct. And, whether we call man’s striving for power animusdominandi or lust for power or whatever, as long as this desire does not stemfrom man’s inclination for self-preservation but is regarded as an autonomousaspiration, then, man’s proclivity towards power might well be derived fromFreud’s sexual instinct. I have shown why Morgenthau has drawn from Freud’santhropology in Politics: namely, to enquire into the nation’s desire for powerwhich leads to international conflict and, potentially, war. However, forrealism, the group is paramount in political life. As Morgenthau correctlyacknowledged: the animus dominandi (Freud’s sexual instinct) is a socialinstinct; we need others for its gratification. Moreover, Morgenthau alsorecognized, following Freud, the unbridgeable rift between man’s instinctualdemands and the oppressive character of society – this links the domesticto the international sphere. By applying Freud’s notion of identification,Morgenthau explains how the demands of the group, taken together withman’s instinctual configuration, lead to the power game nations play. Inessence: man cannot do as he wishes domestically but he can find instinctualsatisfaction internationally. Conflict on the international sphere thus ensues.

Morgenthau’s intellectual indebtedness to Freud has been identified, andwhat worked for Morgenthau, also works for the three principles of realism.First, realism learned from Freud’s dualistic instinct configuration, distin-guishing between ego instinct and sexual instinct, that human nature strivesfor power and security. Secondly, realism knows when taking Freud’s sexualinstinct together with his group psychology that political life revolves aroundgroups. Thirdly, by acknowledging the inherent conflicts within man (instinctdualism) and between him and society (super-ego’s demand of instinctualrenunciation), realism can explain that relations among nations are conflictual– as these conflicts cannot be dealt with domestically and are thereforetransferred onto the international scene. Linking realism’s three core beliefsto Freudian thought does not, of course, mean that the empirical reality ofwar (and also peace) can ultimately be explained by Freudian anthropology.Describing, explaining, predicting and controlling international conflictsare the tasks of distinctive IR theories. Morgenthau has seen this and his




refutation of the value of Freudian psychoanalysis, as put forth in his auto-biography, needs to be interpreted in this light. However, I was not concernedwith arguing for a psychoanalytical IR theory (which would be undesirable,indeed) but with the task of identifying the philosophical roots of Morgen-thau and realism, and it may argued, in this respect, that Freud has been veryinfluential. Morgenthau’s case has been demonstrated at great length andwhether Freud had actually influenced or inspired the works of other early20th-century realists needs to be further investigated from a ‘history ofpolitical thought’ point of view. I now present some preliminary evidencewhich makes a verification of such a view rather likely.

I have clearly identified the Freudian roots of Morgenthau and it has beenseen that Morgenthau did not only turn to Freud to gain psychoanalyticalknowledge about man’s instinct configuration but also to derive the conceptof the political from human nature. The reason why the founding father ofrealism turned to Freud is inseparably linked with his attempt to construct arealist theory of the state and international politics. Freud stands at the heartof realism. A brief look towards Morgenthau’s bibliography of Politics willconfirm such a view. Morgenthau refers, among others, to the writings ofNiebuhr, Walter Lippmann, Harold D. Lasswell, George F. Kennan, EdwardH. Carr and Martin Wight; all eminent realists. And, indeed, they can all belinked to Freud – as can be Nietzsche, Weber and Schmitt, who also certainlyinfluenced Morgenthau.16

Niebuhr is an interesting case since he is usually referred to as havingwielded a profound impact on Morgenthau. Compare Niebuhr: ‘The man inthe street, with his lust for power and prestige thwarted by his own limi-tations and the necessities of social life, projects his ego upon his nation andindulges in his anarchic lusts vicariously’ (Niebuhr, 2001[1932]: 93). Now, toMorgenthau: ‘Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for powerwithin the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspir-ations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction inidentification with the power drives of the nation’ (1967: 98). Their reason-ing is fairly similar. Has Morgenthau drawn from Niebuhr? No, from Freud.Has Niebuhr read Freud too closely? This is not unlikely. Although Niebuhrattacks Freud on several occasions (1957, 1941), in particular the later Niebuhrshows, as John Irwin (1975: 242) has argued, ‘a glimmering appreciation ofthe writings of the later Freud and the post-Freudians’ (see also Halliwell,2005: 131–59). The second of our realists, Lippmann, was even more influ-enced by Freud and applied Freudian psychoanalysis to politics (Jones, 1913;Lippmann, 1913; Steel, 1980). Perhaps the easiest case for our purpose isLasswell. Martin Birnbach (1962: 157) points out that Lasswell ‘draws hisinspiration directly from Freud’ (e.g. Lasswell, 1930, 1935). Fourth in our listis Kennan who, characteristically for realists, warned of a naïve belief in therule of law among nations: international law cannot repress the dangerous




dispositions of governments in the same way as it is achieved domestically,where legal rules repress the aggressive instincts of the individuals directly –on this point, ‘Kennan agreed with Freud’ (Christenson, 1986: 350, n. 17, alsoCostigliola, 1997: 1323). Next is Carr who ranks, beside Morgenthau andNiebuhr, as one of the most important 20th-century realists. He, too, referredto Freud in his works (see Carr, 1936, 1961), and Whittle Johnston points outthat Carr was partly influenced by Freud (1967: 878). Wight, a leading figurein the development of British IR theory, must also be included in this list ofrealists; not so much to find a Freudian influence upon him but because hepoints out, if only briefly, that Freud’s anthropology might well work forrealism (Wight, 1991: 12, 21, 25). Moving on now to Nietzsche, Weber andSchmitt, it is rather well known that Freud was influenced by Nietzsche andthat their thoughts overlap to a more or less significant degree (Assoun, 2002;Gasser, 1997; Lehrer, 1995). Moreover, some similarities between Weber andFreud have been pointed out (McIntosh, 1970, Strong, 1987). Yet, perhapsthe most interesting case is Schmitt. Just like Kelsen and other importantinterwar-period lawyers, Schmitt, too, seems to have been under the widerinfluence of Freud. In a long essay on the psychoanalytical and phenom-enological perspectives of Kelsen and Schmitt, Anthony Carty has arguedthat Schmitt followed Freud ‘closely in viewing the importance of massidentification with leadership as a basis for legal authority’ (1995: 1237).17

In summary, not only Morgenthau but also Niebuhr, Lippmann, Lasswell,Kennan, Carr and Schmitt were influenced (some more, some less) byFreudian thought – and this ought to be carefully considered in a history of20th-century political realism.

It was beyond the scope of this article to examine whether Freud himselffits intellectually into the realist paradigm (likely) or to study whetherMorgenthau would have reached different conclusions as regards his inter-national theory if he had read Freud differently (unlikely). The present articlehas attempted to achieve its goal, by means of reinterpreting Morgenthau’santhropology, when it could convincingly put forth two arguments. First,Hans J. Morgenthau, architect of 20th-century realism and IR, constructedhis theory of international politics upon the early instinct theory and grouppsychology of Sigmund Freud. Secondly, it is more than likely that realism,the most important of all IR theories, was founded upon Freud’s insights intoman. Moreover, I hope this article can help to raise Freud’s profile in IR andinternational-political theory, which is disappointingly low given his influ-ence on the political thought of Morgenthau and other eminent realists.




NOTES

I wish to thank (but not implicate) Charles R. Beitz, Ruth Cave, Anthony F. Lang,Clemens Jabloner, Peter M. R. Stirk, Stephen P. Turner and John C. Williams, as wellas the three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor, James M. M. Good.

1 Strictly speaking, realism is not a theory but a ‘philosophical position’ (Gilpin,1996) or Weltanschauung (Smith, 1986) which, in turn, informs the constructionof scientific theories about international politics.

2 Freud, together with William C. Bullitt, published a psychological biography ofWoodrow Wilson. Their controversial study, which was not well received, waswritten in the 1930s but only appeared in the United States some 30 years later(Freud and Bullitt, 1967).

3 More recent scholars working within the realist framework include: RobertGilpin, Joseph M. Grieco, Stephen D. Krasner, Eric J. Labs, Michael Mastanduno,John J. Mearsheimer, Barry R. Posen, George H. Quester, João Resende-Santos,Randall L. Schweller, Glenn H. Snyder, Jack Snyder, Ashley J. Tellis, Bradley H.Thayer, Stephen Van Evera, Stephen M. Walt, Kenneth N. Waltz, William C.Wohlforth and Fareed Zakaria.

4 The core assumptions of the realists were already put forward by thinkers suchas Thucydides, St Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza and Rousseau.

5 Realist theories also have the following labels: classical realism; biological realism;defensive and offensive realism; hawkish and dovish realism; pessimistic and opti-mistic realism; first-image, second-image and third-image realism; a-moral andmoral realism; classical and modern tragedy realism; classical and modern evilrealism; rational choice realism (comprehensive and valuable works on realisminclude Brown, Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1995; Smith, 1986; Frankel, 1996a, 1996b).

6 The ‘Freud Script’ is available at the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress,Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 151). A copy is on filewith the author.

7 Hence, all translations regarding the ‘Freud Script’ are my own; for an exceptionsee note 12. Hans Morgenthau's daughter, Susanna Morgenthau, has recentlygranted the author permission to prepare an English edition of the 'Freud Script'.

8 Section titles are as follows (my translation): §1 On the Derivation of the Politicalfrom the Nature of Man; §2 On the Basic Truths of Human Psyche; §3 The DualFunction of the Pleasure Principle; §4 The Objects of the Political; §5 Man asthe Primary Object of the Political; §6 The Modalities of the Political; §7 TheFunctional Relationships between the Political and its Object; §8 The PossibleDiscrepancies between Political Will and Political Satisfaction; §9 The Differencebetween the Instinct of Self-Preservation and Self-Assertion; §10 The Differencebetween Political Will and the Environment; §11 [heading indecipherable, R.S.];§12 The Discrepancy between Political Force and its Realization.

9 On Morgenthau and Aristotle, see Lang (2004, in press); on Hans Kelsen, seeKoskenniemi (2006); on Abraham Lincoln, see Ferrell (2006), Foner (2004) andAnastaplo (2004); on Reinhold Niebuhr, see Stone (2006), Shinn (2004, 2006) andWellman (2006); on Friedrich Nietzsche, see Frei (1994), Gismondi (2004)and Peterson (1999); on Carl Schmitt, see Pichler (1998), Koskenniemi (2001:




413–509), Scheuerman (1999: 225–51); on Hugo Sinzheimer, see Scheuerman (inpress); on the Sophists, see Johnson (1996); on Max Weber, see Pichler (1998)and Turner (2004, and Turner and Factor, 1984); on Morgenthau and Germanpolitical thought more generally, see Soellner (1987), Honig (1996) and Shilliam(2007). Other recent, notable works on Morgenthau include Bain (2000), Craig(2003), Juetersonke (2006), Mollov (2002), Molloy (2004), Pin-Fat (2005),Williams (2004, in press), Wong (2000), and the 37 essays in G. O. Mazur’s twoMorgenthau Festschriften (Mazur, 2004b, 2006), which are presently availableonly by reprint at: Andreeff Hall, 12, rue de Montrosier, 92200 Neuilly, Paris,France. (Thanks to a kind donation of Stephen P. Turner, the Twenty-Five YearMemorial Commemoration [Mazur, 2006] is now accessible through DurhamUniversity library. The One Hundred Year Commemoration [Mazur, 2004b] ison file with the author.) Important tributes to Hans J. Morgenthau are Truthand Tragedy (Thompson and Myers, 1984) and, more recently, The Heritage,Challenge, and Future of Realism (Hacke, Kindermann and Schellhorn, 2005).

10 The Gesammelte Werke, edited by Anna Freud et al. (1940–52), amounts to 18volumes; the Standard Edition, edited by James Strachey et al. (1953–74), amountsto 24 volumes. I have used the Gesammelte Werke; however, quotations are takenfrom the Standard Edition.

11 Frei’s Morgenthau biography of 1994 was recently translated into English (Frei,2001).

12 The ‘Freud Script’’s first two sections (§§1, 2) have been translated into English(apparently by a friend of Morgenthau [Frei, 1994: 136]). The quotation is takenfrom this supplement (pp. 4–5) to the original German manuscript.

13 I have used the original German Imago article (Kelsen, 1922); an English trans-lation appeared two years later (see Kelsen, 1924).

14 Morgenthau had already warned against any American military intervention inVietnam in the late 1950s. He strongly and overtly opposed the Vietnam War andwe can be almost certain that Morgenthau would have joined the (fairly large)group of American political realists who were against the second Iraq war (Falk,2004; Mearsheimer, 2006; Rafshoon, 2001).

15 Morgenthau and Ethel Spector Person were close friends (for her very personalreflections on Morgenthau, see Person, 2004). Person, in turn, taught Morgen-thau ‘a great deal about Sigmund Freud and those who stood upon his shoulders’(Stoessinger, 2004: 145). It was certainly no ‘beginners’ course.

16 See n. 9 and Morgenthau’s own biographical statement (1978).17 Despite an increasingly large body of Schmitt literature, the Freud–Schmitt

relation is, to my knowledge, rather underdeveloped yet very interesting (anotherexception is Schoepf, 2004).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastaplo, G. (2004) ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Greatness of Abraham Lincoln’, inG. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 43–53.




Assoun, P.-L. (2002) Freud and Nietzsche. London: Continuum.Bain, W. (2000) ‘Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism

Reconsidered’, Review of International Studies 26: 445–64.Birnbach, M. (1962) Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy. Stanford, NJ: Stanford

University Press.Booth, K. and Smith, S., eds (1995) International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge:

Polity.Brown, M. E., Lynn-Jones, S. M. and Miller, S. E., eds (1995) The Perils of Anarchy:

Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. et al.,

eds (2005) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn. Basingstoke, Hants:Palgrave Macmillan.

Carr, E. H. (1936) ‘Public Opinion as a Safeguard of Peace’, International Affairs 15:846–62.

Carr, E. H. (1961) What is History? London: Macmillan.Carty, A. (1995) ‘Interwar German Theories of International Law: The Psychoanalytic

and Phenomenological Perspectives of Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt’, CardozoLaw Review 16: 1235–92.

Caudill, D. S. (1990) ‘Freud and Critical Legal Studies: Contours of a Radical Socio-Legal Psychoanalysis’, Indiana Law Journal 66: 651–97.

Christenson, G. A. (1986) ‘Kennan and Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly 8:345–73.

Costigliola, F. (1997) ‘“Unceasing Pressure for Penetration”: Gender, Pathology, andEmotion in George Kennan’s Formation of the Cold War’, Journal of AmericanHistory 83: 1309–39.

Craig, C. (2003) Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr,Morgenthau, and Waltz. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S., eds (2007) International Relations Theory: Disci-pline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ehrenzweig, A. A. (1971) Psychoanalytic Jurisprudence. New York: Oceana.Elshtain, J. B. (1989) ‘Freud’s Discourse of War/Politics’, in J. Der Derian and M. J.

Shapiro (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings ofWorld Politics. New York: Lexington, pp. 49–67.

Falk, R. A. (2004) ‘Hans Morgenthau on Two Wars of America in Vietnam and Iraq’,in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 27–37.

Ferrell, R. (2006) ‘The Attraction of President Lincoln to Morgenthau’, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 35–43.

Foner, E. (2004) ‘A Rediscovered Essay on Abraham Lincoln by Hans Morgenthau’,in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 38–42.

Forbes, I. (1984) ‘People or Processes? Einstein and Freud on the Causes of War’,Politics 4: 16–20.

Frank, J. (1930) Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward-McCann.Frankel, B., ed. (1996a) Realism: Restatements and Renewals. London: Frank Cass.Frankel, B., ed. (1996b) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass.




Frei, C. (1994) Hans J. Morgenthau – Eine intellektuelle Biographie [An IntellectualBiography]. Berne: Paul Haupt.

Frei, C. (2001) Hans J. Morgenthau: an Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press.

Freud, A., Bibring, E., Hoffer, W., Kris, E. and Isakower, O., eds (1940–52) SigmundFreud: Gesammelte Werke [Collected Works], vol. 18. London: Imago.

Freud, S. (1921) ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’, in J. Strachey (ed.)The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud,vol. 18. London: Hogarth, pp. 65–143.

Freud, S. (1923) ‘The Ego and the Id’, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of theComplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 19. London: Hogarth,pp. 1–66.

Freud, S. (1930) ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’, in J. Strachey (ed.) The StandardEdition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 21. London:Hogarth, pp. 57–145.

Freud, S. (1933) ‘Why War?’, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of theComplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 22. London: Hogarth,pp. 197–215.

Freud, S. and Bullitt, W. C. (1967) Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Twenty-Eighth Presidentof the United States: a Psychological Study. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Gasser, R. (1997) Nietzsche und Freud [Nietzsche and Freud]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Gay, P. (1988) Freud: A Life for Our Time. New York: Norton.Gilpin, R. (1986) ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, in R. O. Keohane

(ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 301–21.Gilpin, R. (1996) ‘No One Loves a Political Realist’, in B. Frankel (ed.) Realism:

Restatements and Renewals. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass, pp. 3–26.Gismondi, M. (2004) ‘Tragedy, Realism, and Postmodernity: Kulturpessimismus in

the Theories of Max Weber, E. H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, and HenryKissinger’, Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 435–64.

Hacke, C., Kindermann, G.-K. and Schellhorn, K. M., eds (2005) The Heritage,Challenge, and Future of Realism: In Memoriam Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–1980).Goettingen: V&R unipress.

Halliday, F. (1995) ‘The End of the Cold War and International Relations: SomeAnalytical and Theoretical Conclusions’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) Inter-national Relations Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 38–61.

Halliwell, M. (2005) The Constant Dialogue: Reinhold Niebuhr and American Intel-lectual Culture. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Honig, J. W. (1996) ‘Totalitarianism and Realism: Hans Morgenthau’s German Years’,in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass, pp. 283–313.

Irwin, J. E. G. (1975) ‘Reinhold Niebuhr’s Critique of Freudian Psychoanalysis’,Journal of Religion and Health 14: 242–53.

Jabloner, C. (1998) ‘Kelsen and his Circle: The Viennese Years’, European Journal ofInternational Law 9: 368–85.

Johnson, T. J. (1996) ‘The Idea of Power Politics: The Sophistic Foundations ofRealism’, in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass, pp. 194–247.

Johnston, W. (1967) ‘E. H. Carr’s Theory of International Relations: a Critique’,Journal of Politics 29: 861–84.

Jones, E. (1913) ‘Review of Walter Lippmann’s A Preface to Politics’, Imago 2: 452–6.




Jones, E. (1957) Sigmund Freud – Life and Work: The Last Phase, 1919–1939. London:Hogarth.

Juetersonke, O. (2006) ‘Hans J. Morgenthau on the Limits of Justiciability in Inter-national Law’, Journal of the History of International Law 8: 181–211.

Kelsen, H. (1922) ‘Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie: Mit besondererBeruecksichtigung von Freuds Theorie der Masse’ [The Conception of the Stateand Social Psychology, with Special Reference to Freud’s Group Theory], Imago8: 97–141.

Kelsen, H. (1924) ‘The Conception of the State and Social Psychology, with SpecialReference to Freud’s Group Theory’, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis5: 1–38.

Kelsen, H. (1934) ‘The Pure Theory of Law: Its Method and Fundamental Concepts– Part I’, Law Quarterly Review 50: 474–98.

Kelsen, H. (1967[1934]) Pure Theory of Law, trans. M. Knight. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Keohane, R. O. (1986) ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, inR. O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, pp. 1–26.

Koskenniemi, M. (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of Inter-national Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koskenniemi, M. (2006) ‘Morgenthau’s Books on International Law with HansKelsen’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration tothe Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 152–73.

Lang, A. F., Jr, ed. (2004) Political Theory and International Affairs: Hans J. Morgen-thau on Aristotle’s The Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lang, A. F., Jr (in press) ‘Morgenthau, Agency, and Aristotle’, in M. C. Williams (ed.)Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–41.

Lasswell, H. D. (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1935) World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: WhittleseyHouse.

Lehrer, R. (1995) Nietzsche’s Presence in Freud’s Life and Thought: On the Originsof a Psychology of Dynamic Unconscious Mental Functioning. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Lippmann, W. (1913) A Preface to Politics. New York: Mitchell Kennerley.Luard, E., ed. (1992) Basic Texts in International Relations: The Evolution of Ideas

about International Society. Basingstoke, Hants: Macmillan.Maffettone, S. (2005) ‘Neue Identitaeten [New Identities]’, Psyche 59: 589–610.Mazur, G. O. (2004a) ‘Introduction’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year

Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York:Semenenko Foundation, pp. 1–10.

Mazur, G. O., ed. (2004b) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation.

Mazur, G. O., ed. (2006) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life ofHans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation.

McIntosh, D. (1970) ‘Weber and Freud: On the Nature and Sources of Authority’,American Sociological Review 35: 901–11.

Mearsheimer, J. (2006) ‘Learning from Morgenthau’s Opposition to War in Vietnam’,




in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 267–79.

Mollov, M. B. (2002) Power and Transcendence: Hans J. Morgenthau and the JewishExperience. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Molloy, S. (2004) ‘Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthau’s Formulation of Realism’,Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 1–34.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1929) Die internationale Rechtspflege: ihr Wesen und ihreGrenzen [International Law: Its Nature and its Limits]. Leipzig: Noske.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1930a) ‘Der Selbstmord mit gutem Gewissen. Zur Kritik desPazifismus und der neuen deutschen Kriegsphilosophie’ [Suicide with a ClearConscience. On the Critique of Pacifism and the New German War Philosophy],unpublished manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washing-ton, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 96).

Morgenthau, H. J. (1930b) ‘Ueber die Herkunft des Politischen aus dem Wesen desMenschen’ [On the Derivation of the Political from the Nature of Man]: un-published manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington,DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 151).

Morgenthau, H. J. (1932) ‘Der Kampf der deutschen Staatsrechtslehre um die Wirk-lichkeit des Staates’ [The Struggle of German State-Theory over the Reality ofthe State]: unpublished manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress,Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 110).

Morgenthau, H. J. (1934) La Réalité des Normes, en particulier des Normes du DroitInternational [The Reality of Norms, in particular Norms of International Law].Paris: F. Alcan.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1940) ‘Review of N. S. Timasheff’s An Introduction to theSociology of Law’, Yale Law Journal 49: 1510–13.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1946) Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. London: Latimer House.Morgenthau, H. J. (1962) ‘Love and Power’, Commentary 33: 247–51.Morgenthau, H. J. (1967[1948]) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and

Peace, 4th edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Morgenthau, H. J. (1978) ‘An Intellectual Autobiography’, Society 15: 63–8.Morgenthau, H. J. and Person, E. (1978) ‘The Roots of Narcissism’, Partisan Review

XLV: 337–47.Niebuhr, R. (1941) The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol. 1, Human Nature. London:

Nisbet.Niebuhr, R. (1957) ‘Human Creativity and Self-Concern in Freud’s Thought’, in

B. Nelson (ed.) Freud and the 20th Century. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 255–72.Niebuhr, R. (2001[1932]) Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and

Politics. London: Westminster John Knox.Person, E. (2004) ‘Hans Joachim Morgenthau and the New York Years (1964–1980)’,

in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 148–67.

Peterson, U. E. (1999) ‘Breathing Nietzsche’s Air: New Reflections on Morgenthau’sConcept of Power and Human Nature’, Alternatives 24: 83–113.

Pichler, H.-K. (1998) ‘The Godfathers of “Truth”: Max Weber and Carl Schmitt inMorgenthau’s Theory of Power Politics’, Review of International Studies 24:185–200.




Pin-Fat, V. (2005) ‘The Metaphysics of the National Interest and the “Mysticism” ofthe Nation-State: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau’, Review of International Studies31: 217–36.

Rafshoon, E. G. (2001) ‘A Realist’s Moral Opposition to War: Hans J. Morgenthauand Vietnam’, Peace & Change 26: 55–77.

Scheuerman, W. E. (1999) Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield.

Scheuerman, W. E. (in press) ‘Realism and the Left: The Case of Hans J. Morgen-thau’, Review of International Studies.

Schoepf, A. (2004) ‘Freund und Feind. Der Ursprung des Destruktiven und die Fragenach seiner praktischen Bewaeltigung’ [Friend and Foe. The Origins of Destruc-tiveness and the Question of Coping with it in Practical Terms], Psyche 58: 516–32.

Shilliam, R. (2007) ‘Morgenthau in context: German backwardness, German intellec-tuals and the rise and fall of a liberal project’, European Journal of InternationalRelations 13: 299–327.

Shinn, R. L. (2004) ‘The Continuing Conversation Between Hans Morgenthau andReinhold Niebuhr’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemorationto the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation,pp. 65–87.

Shinn, R. L. (2006) ‘National Interest, Just War, and Nuclear Proliferation’, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 66–77.

Smith, M. J. (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. London: Lousiana StateUniversity Press.

Soellner, A. (1987) ‘German Conservatism in America: Morgenthau’s Political Realism’,Telos 72: 161–72.

Steel, R. (1980) Walter Lippmann and the American Century. Boston, MA and Toronto:Atlantic-Little.

Stoessinger, J. G. (2004) ‘Memories of Hans J. Morgenthau as a Fellow Survivor,Mentor, and Dear Friend’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemo-ration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York: SemenenkoFoundation, pp. 132–47.

Stone, R. (2006) ‘The Ontology of Power in Morgenthau and Niebuhr’, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 78–100.

Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A. and Tyson, A. W., eds (1953–74) The StandardEdition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.

Strong, B. T. (1987) ‘Weber and Freud: Vocation and Self-Acknowledgement’, inW. J. Mommsen and J. Osterhammel (eds) Max Weber and his Contemporaries.London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 468–82.

Thompson, K. W. and Myers, R. J., eds (1984) Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to HansJ. Morgenthau. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Turner, S. P. (2004) ‘Morgenthau as a Weberian’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One HundredYear Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York:Semenenko Foundation, pp. 88–114.

Turner, S. P. and Factor, R. A. (1984) Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason: AStudy in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.




Waltz, K. N. (2001[1959]) Man, the State, and War: a Theoretical Analysis. New York:Columbia University Press.

Wellman, D. (2006) ‘The Moral Realism of Morgenthau and Niebuhr in their Contem-porary Relevance’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commem-oration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation,pp. 101–24.

West, R. (1986) ‘Law, Rights, and Other Totemic Illusions: Legal Liberalism andFreud’s Theory of the Rule of Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review134: 817–82.

Wight, M. (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions. London: LeicesterUniversity Press.

Williams, M. C. (2004) ‘Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgen-thau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics’, Inter-national Organization 58: 633–65.

Williams, M. C., ed. (in press) Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Winslow, E. G. (1986) ‘Keynes and Freud: Psychoanalysis and Keynes’s Account ofthe “Animal Spirits” of Capitalism’, Social Research 53: 549–78.

Winslow, T. (1989) ‘John Maynard Keynes’s “Poetical Economy”’, Journal of Psycho-history 17: 179–94.

Wong, B. (2000) ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellianism’, Millen-nium: Journal of International Studies 29: 389–409.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

ROBERT SCHUETT is a doctoral candidate at Durham University’s School ofGovernment and International Affairs, England. His research interests includeInternational Relations theory and political realism. Robert’s research inter-ests include international relations theory, theories of international justice,and the (international) political thought of Freud and Kelsen. His thesis’sworking title: Realism, Freud, and why IR theory needs to explicitly addresshuman nature arguments.

Address: School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University,the Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road, Durham City, DH1 3TU, UK. Tel:+44 7707 463271. Fax: +44 191 334 5661. [email: [email protected]]




freudian roots of political realism: the importance of sigmund freud to hans j. morgenthau’s...

Documents

morgenthaus politics

modern realism

internationalpolitical

century realism

structural realism

contemporary realism

neoclassical realism

bible of realism