the godfathers of truth weber and schmitt morgenthautheory
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
1/17
The Godfathers of 'Truth': Max Weber and Carl Schmitt in Morgenthau's Theory of PowerPoliticsAuthor(s): Hans-Karl PichlerSource: Review of International Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 185-200Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097517Accessed: 16/08/2010 12:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of International Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097517?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20097517?origin=JSTOR-pdf -
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
2/17
Review of International Studies (1998), 24, 185-200 Copyright ? British International Studies Association
The godfathers of 'truth5: Max Weber and
Carl Schmitt inMorgenthau's theory of
power politics*HANS-KARL PICHLER
Abstract. The article uncovers the intellectual link between Morgenthau's theory of power
politicsand the German thinkers Max Weber and Carl Schmitt.
Throughthis it sheds
lighton
the forceful claims to objectivity contained inMorgenthau's theory of power politics. Theauthor reveals how, by combining Schmitt's ideas of 'the Political' with Weber's ideas on the
objectivity of social science, Morgenthau finds an elegant way to overcome the value
determinacy of social science. This enables him to assert the objectivity of (international)political science. The same arguments allow Morgenthau also to formulate a moral defence of
the state.
A striking feature of Hans Morgenthau's books and articles is their extraordinarily
persuasive language. It seduces the reader to believe that the theories contained in
them are an 'objective' and 'true' reflection of the workings of international politics.Throughout the pages of his main work, Politics among Nations, Morgenthau inces
santly reminds the reader that his writing is about 'the theoretical concern with
human nature as it actually is, and with the historic processes as they actually take
place'.1 Yet Morgenthau's objectivity is more asserted than proven. He fails to
provide epistemological arguments for his claims to objectivity. The 'objectivity' of
the social sciences had been criticized and qualified by Max Weber in his famous
methodological contribution made in the first decades of the twentieth century.2 Itseems peculiar that Morgenthau who, as we know from his writings, was a keenfollower of Weber3 asserts the existence of the perennial and objective laws of
international politics without supporting or qualifying his claim.4The aim of this article is to understand why and how Morgenthau, in Politics
among Nations, throws the Weberian limitations on the objectivity of the social
sciences overboard and indulges in absolute statements. This investigation will show
* I would like to thank Professor Fred Halliday for introducing Carl Schmitt's ideas to me and
encouraging me to write this article. Many thanks also to Dr Christopher Coker and Henrik Thune
for many fruitful discussions, and my parents, Karen L?dtke, Elena Jurado and Anna Bertmar for
their help.1
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn (New York,
1960), p. 4 (my emphasis). Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent quotations are from this edition.2 Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York, 1949). See also Wissenschaft als
Beruf,Politik als
Beruf (Scienceas a Vocation, Politics as a
Vocation),ed. W. J. Mommsen and W.
Schluchter (T?bingen, 1992). I refer to this German edition since it was important for me to read
Weber's original text. Quotations in English are my own translations.3
Hans J. Morgenthau, 'Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography: 1904-1932', in Kenneth
Thompson and Robert J. Myers, Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau (New
Brunswick, NJ, and London, 1984), p. 7. The article was written in 1976 and first published in 1977.4See, e.g., Morgenthau's first book in the USA, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946), and
his article 'The Purpose of Political Science', in James C. Charlesworth (ed.), A Design for Political
Science: Scope, Objectives and Methods (Philadelphia, PA, 1966), pp. 63-79.
185
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
3/17
186 Hans-Karl Pichler
that Morgenthau's solution to the value-determinacy of social science lies in his
conceptionof
politicsas a realm of
perpetualconflict and
strugglefor
powerand
domination. Interpreting international politics this way, the supreme valued end, i.e.,the national interest, pursued by all state-leaders becomes national self-preservation.
The isolation of this single value, which constitutes a defining feature of inter
national politics, allows Morgenthau to overcome the dilemma of the value
determinacy of social science, analyse international politics 'objectively' in the
abstract and draw universal patterns from it. Morgenthau's ideas on the nature of
politics and 'the Political', as this article will show, were informed by the German
political thinker Carl Schmitt. Schmitt developed his conception of 'the Political' in
the 1920s, when Morgenthau was still a student. By the late 1920s Schmitt's ideas on
politics and 'the Political' had already reacheda
wide audience, includingMorgenthau who knew Schmitt personally and refers to him on several occasions.5
Max Weber and Carl Schmitt were two of the most influential thinkers inWeimar
Germany, Weber as a philosopher of science and sociologist, Schmitt for his ideason the essence of politics and the role of the state. Morgenthau's intellectual roots
were grounded in the Weimar Republic, where he studied law first at the Universityof Munich and later in Berlin. In Munich he was introduced to the teachings of
Max Weber. He graduated in 1929 from Berlin after completing a doctoral thesis on
the nature and limits of international law.6 In 1932 he left Germany out of fear of
the imminent Nazi regime and, together with his wife, moved to Geneva where he
taught at the university. Five years later they emigrated to the United States. Afterworking for a brief period at Brooklyn College in New York, Morgenthau gained a
lectureship in law and European politics at the University of Kansas City. In 1943 he
found a permanent position at Chicago University. It was here that he wrote Politics
among Nations, his most famous work and the one upon which most of the analysisof this article is based.
The intellectual link between Morgenthau, Weber and Schmitt has already been
identified in IR literature.71 would like to build on this research by tracing the simi
larities between Morgenthau's thinking and that of Weber and Schmitt respectively,and by showing how, through his conception of 'the Political' and thus of inter
national politics, Morgenthau was able to overcome the value dilemma of
5Morgenthau writes about his meeting with Schmitt in 'Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography'.Moreover, Christoph Frei, in his excellent intellectual biography on Morgenthau, has scrutinized
Morgenthau's unpublished diaries and articles and discovered several manuscripts in which he talks
about Schmitt. See Christoph Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau: Eine intellektuelle Biographie, 2nd edn (Bern,
Stuttgart and Vienna, 1994). Frei argues that Nietzsche also had a strong influence on Morgenthau's
thinking. Among the influences he attributes to Nietzsche are Morgenthau's conception of the 'tragic'in life, and the idea that politics, just like life in general, is a permanent struggle either for survival or
for recognition. As Frei reveals, Morgenthau's diaries contain several references to Nietzsche. On one
occasion Morgenthau writes: 'One should make it a duty for oneself to read Nietzsche three times a
day. Perhaps then one would live in a greater way and achieve greater and higher things'. Quoted in
Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 102 (my translation).6 Hans J. Morgenthau, Die internationale Rechtspflege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen (The Nature and
Limits of International Law) (Leipzig, 1929).7 For a discussion see Alfons S?llner, 'German Conservatism in America: Morgenthau's Political
Realism', Telos, 72 (Summer 1987), pp. 161-77. For Weber and Morgenthau see Jim George,Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO,
1994); Stephen P. Turner and Regis A. Factor, Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason and Value
(Tampa, FL, 1984); and Michael J. Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge,
LA, and London, 1986), pp. 134^65.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
4/17
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
5/17
188 Hans-Karl Pichler
hypothesis against the actual facts and their consequences that gives meaning to the
facts of internationalpolitics
and makes atheory
ofpolitics possible.'12
Morgenthau believes that there is an 'objective' order in international politics. It is
'the concept of interest defined as power [that] infuses rational order into the subjectmatter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics
possible'.13 From this, Morgenthau draws the methodological definition of realism
as a school of thought: A realist theory of international politics, then, will guard
against two popular fallacies: the concern with motives and the concern with
ideological preferences.'14 In other words, realism provides a value-free and objective
analysis of international politics.
Morgenthau's acknowledgement of Weber's influence is brief but compelling. He
justifiedhis admiration for Weber in the
followingterms: 'While as a citizen he was a
passionate observer of the political scene and a frustrated participant in it, as a
scholar he looked at politics without passion and pursued no political purpose
beyond the intellectual one of understanding.'15 As Christoph Frei shows,
Morgenthau was introduced to the teachings of Max Weber first in 1925, when he
read Weber's Science as a Vocation, Politics as a Vocation. More significant than
Morgenthau's autobiographical references is the Weberian influence on his thoughton the methodology of the social sciences, discussed below.
Weber: science versus politics
Through science, Weber argues, it has become possible to understand the world
objectively. The price for this ability is, however, the 'disenchantment' of the world,the belief that 'in principle there are no unaccountable and mysterious powers any
longer' and that 'one can, in principle, control all things through calculation'.16
Science, and by this term he refers to natural science as well as social science,
destroys the religious and magical ideas about the meaning of life and the world
without being able to replace them. 'Who?apart from a few big kids, as there are
especially in the natural sciences?still believes today that the discoveries inastronomy or biology or physics or chemistry can tell us something about the
meaning of life, or better, could even just tell us: how one could go about finding the
traces of this "meaning", if it exists at all.'17 Science is limited to telling peopleabout the facts of the world. Unlike religion, it cannot provide them with an
ultimate explanation for their existence. The 'liberation from the rationality and
intellectuality of science is the fundamental precondition for a life in communion
with the divine'.18 Scientists do not ask 'whether the world they describe has a rightof existence: whether it has a "meaning" and whether itmakes sense to live in it'.19 If
12Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, p. 5.
13Ibid., pp. 5-6.
14Ibid., p. 6.
15Morgenthau, 'Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography', p. 7.
16Weber, Wissenschaft als Beruf, Politik als Beruf, p. 87.
17Ibid., p. 92.
18 Ibid.19
Ibid., p. 94.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
6/17
Godfathers of 'truth' 189
they are real scientists, they concentrate exclusively on facts. They can only tell whatone must do in order to achieve a chosen
end,not what one
oughtto do in a moral
sense. The scientist must realize 'that the ascertaining of facts, the identification of
mathematical or logical facts' and the formulation of an answer to the question 'howone should act within the cultural community and the political associations are two
completely heterogeneous problems . . .Whenever the man of science introduces his
personal value-judgement, a full understanding of the facts ceases.'20 Hence, the
social scientist cannot give normative and ethical advice. To the ethical question,'Does the end justify the means?', Weber replies, 'If he does not want to become a
demagogue the teacher can only emphasise the necessity of this question.'21Politics, on the other hand, is the realm where people pursue their personal
interests. Since politicians choose their actions accordingto
their opinions{Gesinnungen) and opinions are always formed by personal values, politics cannot be
objective in its judgments. The social scientist must beware of political involvement,since 'politics does not belong to the lecture hall, especially if the lecturer engages
scientifically in politics'.22 For Weber the search for value-free politics is futile. Any
political problem allows several solutions, depending on the number of available
valued ends. Nevertheless, science and politics can support each other. It is the dutyof social science to assess critically the practical judgments of politicians throughrational and empirical methods, and of politics to expose itself to scientific criticism.
'All actions, the political ones in particular, must let themselves be irritated by
science through the debate about values and be corrected through the confrontationwith disagreeable facts.'23
In On Methodology, however, Weber takes a step back from this scientific
enthusiasm. 'The objective validity of all empirical knowledge rests exclusively uponthe ordering of a given reality according to categories which are subjective in a
specific sense, namely, in that they present the presuppositions of our knowledge andare based on the presupposition of the value of those truths which empirical
knowledge alone is able to give us ... It should be remembered that the belief in the
value of scientific truth is the product of certain cultures and is not a product of
man's original nature.'24 The analysis of social reality, Weber now argues, is not only
culture-specific, but also influenced by the personal value orientations and interestsof the social scientist. Social reality is informed by the values held by the peopleinvolved. Since these values are difficult to detect in the analysis of social processes,
any scientific analysis of these processes will be conditioned by these values and
unable to reach objectivity. Weber writes: 'The "objectivity" of the social sciences
depends rather on the fact that the empirical data are always related to those
evaluative ideas which alone make them worth knowing and the significance of the
empirical data is derived from these evaluative ideas.'25 To assess the validity of
values, however, is beyond the powers of science. 'These evaluative ideas are for their
20Ibid., pp. 97, 98.
21Ibid., p. 103.
22Ibid., p. 96.
23W. Schluchter, Wertfreiheit und Verantwortungsethik: Zum Verh?ltnis von Wissenschaft und Politik beiMax Weber (T?bingen, 1971), p. 26.
24 Max Weber, Methodology, p. 110.25
Ibid., p. 111.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
7/17
190 Hans-Karl Pichler
part empirically discoverable . . . but their validity can not be deduced from
empiricaldata as such.'26
These statements seem to contradict those made in Science as a Vocation, Politics
as a Vocation. If values inform people's interests as well as social scientists' analysis,how can scientific analysis ever be more than a subjective and limited interpretationof events? The puzzle can be solved by qualifying Weber's conception of objectivity.
Weber's objectivity is directed only towards the past. If social reality is informed bythe changing values of a large number of players, it is impossible to predict in which
direction it will evolve. With past events, history that is, objectivity is possible,because events can no longer change. They are thus open to the scrutiny of the
social scientist, who, in patient labour, explores all facets of the different motiva
tional forces lying beneatha
particular historical event until its dynamics and itssignificance become comprehensible. Moreover, with past events it is easier for the
social scientist to evaluate the influence of his/her own value orientations on the
outcome of the analysis, as the event does not stand in such an immediate relation
to his/her own personal interests. Weber's social science is historical science. It is not
based on scientific relativism. In Weber's own words: 'Now all this [i.e. what he had
said about the value-determinacy of social science] should not be misunderstood to
mean that the proper task of the social sciences should be the continual chase fornew view-points and new analytical constructs. On the contrary: nothing should be
more sharply emphasised than the proposition that the knowledge of the cultural
significance of concrete historical events and patterns is exclusively and solely the finalend which, among other means, concept-construction and the criticism of constructs
also seek to serve.'27 Social science, as long as it remains historical science, can be
objective. However, this objectivity is possible only with regard to a specific event
and never to social reality as a whole in a generalizing fashion.
Morgenthau's views on the possibility of objectivity in social science are almost
identical with those of Weber. And yet Politics among Nations is packed with claims
to absolute objectivity. The first of the 'Six Principles of Political Realism' openswith the statement: 'Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is
governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.'28 The next
subsection will try to explain this apparent contradiction.
Morgenthau: realism's quest for objectivity
The similarity of Morgenthau's views to those of Weber becomes apparent in some
passages of Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, published in 1946, two years before
Politics among Nations. In this work, which can be seen as a critique of the positivisttradition of social science in the USA, Morganthau writes: 'The social sciences can,
at best, present a series of hypothetical possibilities, each of which may occur undercertain conditions. Which of them will actually occur is anybody's guess.'29 The
social world, Morgenthau argues, is too complex to be analysed and understood
26 Ibid.27 Ibid.28
Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, p. 4 (my emphasis).29
Morgenthau, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, p. 130.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
8/17
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
9/17
192 Hans-Karl Pichler
However, there is a further way in which Morgenthau can justify his claims to the
objectivityof his theories.
By isolatingnational
self-preservation,and with it
powermaximization, as the supreme valued end (the national interest) of all state leaders
in international politics, Morgenthau is able to overcome the problem of the value
determinacy of social and political science because all state-leaders cannot but
pursue this one valued end. If this is so, the social scientist is not distracted by the
complexity of value orientations present in social dynamics pursuing, for instance,such ends as a 'good life'. The possible outcomes of the struggle for power and self
preservation are neither culturally relative nor dependent on the interpretation of
the social scientist. Only two options exist: the state either survives or it perishes.
Any analysis of international politics cannot but move between these two extremes,
both of which are easily identifiable and unambiguous.While this uncovers the logic behind Morgenthau's calls for power maximization,
it is still necessary to explain why Morgenthau defines international politics as a
realm of perpetual struggle for power and argues so forcefully for the preservation of
the state. For answers to these questions one needs to look at the origins of
Morgenthau's ideas on the nature of politics. It is here that Carl Schmitt enters the
picture. Morgenthau was deeply influenced by Schmitt in his conception of politicsin general and 'the Political' in particular. This assertion is based on two facts.
Firstly, Morgenthau's and Schmitt's definitions of 'the Political' are very similar.
Secondly, Morgenthau knew Schmitt personally and tried, as we know from his
diaries and articles, to expand on Schmitt's ideas on the topic.35 Morgenthau andSchmitt met in Berlin in 1929. According to Morgenthau, the meeting was a disaster,
with Schmitt talking incessantly and Morgenthau not really having a chance to putforward his views. Later Morgenthau writes: 'The disappointment was total. When I
walked down the stairs from Schmitt's apartment, I stopped on the landing between
his and the next floor and said to myself: Now I have just met the most evil man
alive.'36
In an attempt to find answers to the questions raised above, the next section will
illustrate Schmitt's ideas and then compare them with Morgenthau's.
The nature of the political
Schmitt's ideas about 'the Political' are a response to the modern liberal state in
general and the difficulties of parliamentary democracy in the Weimar Republic in
35 See Morgenthau, 'Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography'. Further remarks on Schmitt are
contained in unpublished manuscripts. Among them are Morgenthau's inauguration speech at
Geneva University, 'Der Kampf der deutschen Staatslehre um die Wirklichkeit des Staates' (The
Struggle of German Political Science for the Reality of the State) (Geneva, 1932), and '?ber den Sinnder Wissenschaft in dieser Zeit und ?ber die Bestimmung des Menschen' (On the Meaning of Science
Today and the Vocation of the Human Being) (Geneva, 1934). All these are cited in Frei, Hans J.
Morgenthau.36
Morgenthau, 'Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography', p. 16. It needs to be kept in mind,
however, that this strongly negative judgment ismost certainly conditioned by Morgenthau's attemptto distance himself from German acquaintances that had been involved with the Nazi regime.Schmitt was one of them, as he was nominated 'Staatsrat' (counsellor of the state) by Goering in
1933.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
10/17
Godfathers of 'truth' 193
particular. The difficulty in finding a stable government coalition for Germany after
World WarI,
as well as thealleged
socialist threat and the social divisionresulting
from it, created a sense of confusion among many political observers. They feared
that Germany might not be able to regain the alleged internal unity and the greatpower status it had possessed before World War I. Schmitt's ideas should be read as
a very strong and often brilliant expression of a mood which prevailed among manyintellectuals who had been educated under the pre-World War I imperial order.
Schmitt, just like Morgenthau, feared that politics was disintegrating, and attributed
this process to the negative influence of liberalism.
Schmitt: conflict as the essence of 'the Political'
Schmitt's reflections on the nature of politics are a product of his concern that, in
the modern state of the early twentieth century, the political element was being
supplanted by liberal, that is legalistic and pluralist, forms of social organization.
Against this, Schmitt identifies conflict and struggle as the essence of 'the Political'.
He writes: 'The political can be understood only in the context of the ever present
possibility of the friend and enemy grouping, regardless of the aspects which this
implies for morality, aesthetics and economics.'37 While in economics the categories
are profitable/unprofitable and in morality good/bad, 'the definition of the notion ofthe political can only be arrived at through the discovery and determination of the
specifically political categories, since the political does have its own categories'.38 The
determining categories of politics are the opposites of friend and enemy. Wherever
and whenever there is an enemy, 'the Political' exists. Although the enemy is not
necessarily morally bad or evil, it is a foe not just in a figurative sense but in a veryexistential way. 'He simply is the other, the alien, and it is enough that in a veryexistential sense he is something so different and alien that war with him is possiblein the extreme case . . .The notions friend and enemy are to be understood in their
concrete, existential meaning, not as metaphors or symbols.'39
Schmitt's conception of human nature is the ultimate source of his ideas aboutpolitics. All real political theories', he holds, 'presume the human being to be a
"dangerous" and dynamic being'.40 They 'cannot take an anthropological
"optimism" as their point of departure. By abolishing the possibility of an enemy
they would also abolish any specifically political consequences.'41 If human naturewere good, in other words, 'the Political' would disappear.
'The Political' exists only where the possibility of war, within and between
societies, is given. A world within which the possibility of war is ultimatelyeliminated, a completely pacified planet in other words, would be a world without
the friend/enemy divide and hence a world without politics.'42 The fact that war
37 Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen (The Concept of the Political) (Berlin, 1963), p. 36. All
quotes made from this text are my own translations.38
Ibid., p. 26.39
Ibid., pp. 27, 28.40
Ibid., p. 61.41
Ibid., p. 64.42
Ibid., p. 35.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
11/17
194 Hans-Karl Pichler
occurs only exceptionally does not diminish its determining character on politics.'The ultimate
consequenceof the
politicalbloc formation into friends and enemies
becomes real only in actual conflict. It is from this most extreme possibility that the
life of human beings derives its specific political tension.'43 Although peacefulcoexistence during normal times makes it difficult to know the friend from the
enemy, the political tension is always present beneath the surface and ready to eruptin the case of an emergency.
These strong statements need to be read in the context of Schmitt's critique of
liberalism. He blames liberal thought for obfuscating 'the Political' by trying to
reduce it to the status of other realms in society such as economics or culture. The
liberal argument for pluralism and the basic equality of all associations in the state,
Schmitt argues, is derived from the observation that individuals, in their private lives,live in a whole variety of relationships and associations at any one time. For Schmitt
this analogy is flawed because it neglects the difference between the individual and
the state and denies the political unity of the state.
Schmitt is not anti-democratic. His critique is directed against what he believes to
be the liberal conception of politics. While democracy makes everything political by
including all facets of life and all people in the political process, liberalism tries to
privatize the public sphere. 'In liberal thinking the political concept of conflict is
transformed into economic competition and intellectual debate. In place of a clear
distinction between the two conditions "war" and "peace" appear the dynamics of
perpetual competition and perpetual discussion. Hence the state turns intosociety'.44 Schmitt considers this process dangerous because it neglects the
possibility of an inner or outer enemy.If liberalism were given a free hand, the state's role would be reduced to 'playing
one association out against the other in the name of the free individual and his
freedom of relationships, whereby all questions are decided upon from the
perspective of the individual'.45 By curtailing the realm of state authority, liberalism
endangers the welfare of the people. In a world governed by liberal principles, 'there
might be very interesting opposites and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of all
sorts, but never an opposition of such force as to justify the demand on people to
sacrifice their own life and to give people the inner strength to shed their own bloodand kill others'.46 The consequences of forgetting that struggle is the essence of 'the
Political' may be lethal. 'If a people is afraid of the risks entailed in a politicalexistence another people will easily be found which will relieve it from its troubles by
assuming the role of "protector" and thereby gain political power over it.'47
This extreme situation Schmitt defines as the case of emergency
(Ausnahmezustand). In a situation of such imminent existential danger, there needs
to be a sovereign able to defend society and restore order. In the modern era this
duty falls on the state since it alone can create the political unity necessary for the
defence of society. The state decides upon the existence or non-existence of the
enemy and yields the jus belli, the right to decide upon the lives of the citizens. Forextreme cases of peril, Schmitt envisages a 'commissarial dictatorship' whose duty it
43 Ibid.44
Ibid., pp. 70-1.45
Ibid., p. 45.46
Ibid., pp. 35-6.47
Ibid., p. 53.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
12/17
Godfathers of 'truth' 195
is to restore peace and order. Once the existential threat is over, however, the
dictatorshipis to hand executive
powerback to the constitutional
government.For
Schmitt the emergency is never the rule, as it is with Fascism and Nazism.48
Schmitt criticizes liberalism for destroying political unity within the state by
fragmenting society. 'The political unity must, if necessary, demand the sacrifice of
life. For the individualism of liberal thought this claim is impossible to reach'.49 If
unity within society ceases to exist, 'the Political' vanishes with it. This does not
mean that all details of the life of the people in the state are determined by the
sovereign and by 'the Political'. Economic, social, cultural and moral associations all
exist under the rule of law. However, 'every religious, moral, economic, ethical or
other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to
divide human beings into friends and enemies'.50 In other words, the possibility ofconflict and, ultimately, the case of emergency can never be excluded and lies behind
all forms of social life.
However, in his theory of 'the Political' and the case of emergency Schmitt leaves
two fundamental questions unanswered: why is conflict the essence of 'the Political'
and why is it that 'the Political' is always present? Both these questions find an
answer inMorgenthau's theory of 'the Political'.
Morgenthau: 'the Political' as the key to objectivity
Some of Morgenthau's earliest, and very 'Schmittian', comments on the nature of
'the Political' are contained in his doctoral thesis on international law, written in
1929. Herein, Morgenthau argues that 'political questions in the area of interstate
relations are questions that influence the individuality of one state against that of
others and are related to the preservation and assertion of that individuality within
the community of states'.51 He argues that the scope of international law is neces
sarily limited because there is no political power to enforce it. According to
Morgenthau, the belief that international law will solve the problems of inter
national politics is short-sighted and based on a wrong understanding of the natureof 'the Political'. The struggle for power will push states into violent conflict with
each other.
Why is 'the Political' defined as struggle for power leading to conflict? In search
for an answer, Morgenthau turns to the individual. 'The most basic fact of existence
which cannot be subdivided further is the fact of life itself . . . Before and in all
combinations of human motivation there is one basic force: the impulse for life
which strives for survival and recognition.'52 The achievement of either aim, survivalor recognition, Morgenthau argues, requires power, but with one crucial difference.
While the struggle for survival is the result of a lack of power, the search for
recognition is the product of an excess of power. Both are natural and innate urges.
48 Paul Hirst, 'Schmitt: Enemy or Foe?', Telos, 72 (Summer 1987), p. 21.49
Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, pp. 70, 45.50
Ibid., p. 37.51
Morgenthau, Die internationale Rechtspflege, pp. 59-60.52
Hans J. Morgenthau, ?ber die Herkunft des Politischen aus dem Wesen des Menschen, p. 10, quoted in
Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, pp. 132-3 (my translation).
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
13/17
196 Hans-Karl Pichler
In Morgenthau's words, 'the struggle for power is universal in time and space and isan undeniable fact of
experience.'53 Apartfrom
referring dogmaticallyto
experience,Morgenthau delivers no proof for this anthropological statement. He merely asserts
that 'it is the most convincing element of human motivation'.54 If the struggle for
power is an innate urge of human beings it follows that 'the Political is to be under
stood as a force that exists within the individual and is necessarily directed towards
other people in the form of "a desire for power".'55The meaning of the term 'power' is left open by Morgenthau. In Science: Servant
or Master? he remarks that everyone always strives for power, the scholar seeking
knowledge, the mountaineer climbing a rock-face, the poet trying to catch theessence of life in words. The struggle for power is thus omnipresent. Yet, not all
these manifestations of the struggle for powerare
also political. It is only 'when they[the people] choose as their object other men that they enter the political sphere'.56In opposition to the struggle for power, 'the Political' is not always present. It
appears only when the struggle for power is directed against other human beings,not against the natural world. With this statement, the struggle for power acquires a
social dimension. It moves from the purely personal and individual level onto the
social plain. As a dynamic between people, the struggle for power becomes social
conflict, i.e., politics. This explains why Morgenthau defines 'the Political' as 'the
point of reference of all social activity'.57 In defining 'the Political' this way,
Morgenthau, unlike Schmitt, identifies both the origin of 'the Political' and the
conditions under which it appears. Schmitt considers 'the Political' only in relationto the state and does not talk about its origins. Morgenthau realized this short
coming early on. In an unpublished article written in 1930, he remarks that thoughhe admires Schmitt's 'exceptional mental intensity and reliable instinct', it was a pitythat 'instead of penetrating to the deepest roots of the reality of the state, he stops
half way'.58
Morgenthau defines 'the Political' not as something fixed, but as a property that is
kept to a higher or a lower degree, just as bodies keep heat. However, there is a
difference: one can measure the degree of a body's temperature with the help of a
mercury column and a scale. In the area of 'the Political', such an objective standard
does not exist. The specific political element thus consists 'in the degree of intensitywith which a matter of state activity can be related to the individuality of the state
itself . . .Questions on which the preservation of the existence of the state depends,
obviously stand in the closest imaginable relation to the individuality of the state.'59
The idea that 'the Political' manifests itself in varying degrees of intensity is an
extension of Schmitt's notion of 'the Political', which is confined to the criteria of
the friend/enemy distinction. Schmitt was so impressed by this addition to his own
53Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, p. 33.
54Morgenthau, ?ber die Herkunft des Politischen, p. 10, quoted in Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, pp. 132-3
(my translation).55Morgenthau, ?ber die Herkunft des Politischen, p. 9, quoted in Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 132 (my
translation).56 Hans J. Morgenthau, Science: Servant or Master? (New York, 1972), p. 31.57 Hans J. Morgenthau, diary entry, 31 May 1930, quoted in Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 180 (my
translation).58
Morgenthau, ?ber die Herkunft des Politischen, p. 25, quoted in Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 124 (my
translation).59
Morgenthau, Die internationale Rechtspflege, pp. 70-1.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
14/17
Godfathers of 'truth' 197
theory that he congratulated Morgenthau on it in writing. This event was also thereason for their
meetingin Berlin in 1929.60
Morgenthau's thought on 'the Political' matches Schmitt's on most other points.Firstly, both share the view that everything is potentially political. For Morgenthauthe precondition is only that someone's search for power is directed towards another
human being. Whether this occurs in the field of art or of politics per se is irrelevant.
Schmitt's view is identical.61 Secondly, both thinkers use similar arguments in their
critique of liberalism. In words that could be taken from Schmitt, Morgenthauwrites: 'Under the impact of nineteenth century liberalism, Anglo-American societyhas been strongly influenced, and at times dominated, by a philosophy that denies
politics a prominent and honourable place in the order of things. Politics as conflict
of interests decided througha
struggle for power is here regarded as an ephemeralphenomenon, a kind of residue of either aristocratic or capitalistic society, for thetime being to be pushed into a corner fenced off by constitutional safeguards and
ultimately to be abolished altogether.'62 Finally, Morgenthau also shares Schmitt's
negative view of human nature. 'The drives to live, to propagate, and to dominateare common to all men.'
This claim to the universality of the struggle for power lends him the basic
argument for defining international politics as a realm of power politics. Since the
struggle for power is a basic feature of human life, Morgenthau asks, 'is it surprisingthat international politics is of necessity power politics?'63 where 'the absence of any
form of rational regulation makes violence into the measure and the means of prooffor the position of a state'.64 Hence, in interstate relations Schmitt's case of
emergency, defined as a situation of existential conflict, becomes the norm.
If the case of emergency is the norm in international politics, it follows that all
political thinking and advice for action in international politics must be oriented
towards the end of the preservation of the state. Since self-preservation is guaranteed through power, it is justified to equate the national interest with the pursuit of
power. National self-preservation through power maximization becomes both the
key value and the key end towards which all political resources are directed in allstates. Morgenthau writes, Tn a world where a number of sovereign nations compete
with and oppose each other for power, the foreign policies of all nations mustnecessarily refer to their survival as their minimum requirement.'65 Here lie the rootsof his famous formula, 'International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for
power.'
Once all alternative values which state leaders might want to pursue are subordinated to the maximization of power and the value of self-preservation,
Morgenthau is able to claim objectivity in his analysis. As noted earlier, Weber's
argument against the objectivity of social science is that every end pursued in socialaction is informed by the values of the people involved. The social scientist can
neither know all these different values nor give a judgment on them, as values are
60Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 169.
61 In Der Begriff des Politischen, p. 76, Schmitt writes, '[the fact] that economic differences have become
political. . . shows that the political can be reached from economics as well as from any other field'.62 Hans J. Morgenthau, The Restoration of American Politics (Chicago and London, 1962), p. 90.63
Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, p. 35.64
Morgenthau, Die internationale Rechtspflege, p. 77.65 Hans J. Morgenthau, Dilemmas of Politics (Chicago and London, 1958), p. 66.
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
15/17
198 Hans-Karl Pichler
part of the personal realm beyond the grasp of science. In Morgenthau's theory ofinternational
politics,national
self-preservation throughthe maximization of
poweris a clear, universal value contained in the very definition of international politics.All actions in the international system exclusively serve the end of powermaximization in order to guarantee national survival. In contrast to such political
questions as 'what is a good life?', whose interpretation is open to a variety of
different answers all conditioned by the values held by different people, national self
preservation is a fundamental and universally valid existential question which allows
only one interpretation: the state either survives or it perishes. There is no solution in
between. To preserve the state, state leaders must and will maximize the power of thestate. It is in their own interest to do so, because the state guarantees their personal
survival just like that of societyas a
whole. Due to these conditions, all ambiguity inthe interpretation of social facts disappears.66 Like the state-leader, the social
scientist cannot but share the supreme value of self-preservation in his/her own
existential interest. Since the social scientist's analysis is thus informed by the same
value as that of the state leader and there is only one possible valued end, analytical
objectivity is possible.
Finally, it is still necessary to explain why Morgenthau argues so forcefully for the
preservation of the state in Politics among Nations.611 believe that the answer lies in
his conception of morality combined with his ideas about the nature of inter
national politics. Morgenthau believes in the existence of universal moral values and
argues that 'it is the moral duty of people of the mind today to preserve the eternalmoral ethical values in a clear conceptual order'.68 Yet, in the anarchic and violent
international system dominated by the struggle for power, there is no room for
altruistic action and a moral life. Such a life is only possible within the state, where
sanctions guarantee the respect of moral norms and laws. Through the existential
security it offers the individual and society, the state thus constitutes the only moral
space in an amoral world. If the state perishes, however, this moral realm also
disappears. It follows that the preservation of the state is a moral act in itself.
Indeed, for Morgenthau the state is not allowed to pursue any other end than itsown self-preservation, even if this can be achieved only by immoral means. In his
book In Defense of the National Interest Morgenthau makes this point even more
66 For this logic to work it must be assumed that power maximization is a straightforward process and
that all actions of state-leaders during their public function are directed towards this goal at all times.
Morgenthau is silent on this point. However, if the possibility is conceded that not all acts of the
state-leaders in international politics are directed towards the goal of power-maximization, the
question arises how the social scientist can distinguish between those that are and those that are not.
This dilemma poses a serious threat to the unity of Morgenthau's theory of international politics and
to his claims to analytical objectivity. It seems peculiar to me that Morgenthau does not expand on
this point. However, it is not within the scope of this article to investigate this question.67 The reference to Politics among Nations is important here, as the state-centric nature of Morgenthau's
theories weakens in his later work. Already in Dilemmas of Politics, written in 1958, he makes clear
that the institution of the state is a not eternal but a particular historical manifestation of political
organization: 'As long as the world is politically organized into nations, the national interest is indeedthe last word in international politics' (p. 66, my emphasis). In 'The Intellectual and Political
Functions of Theory', written in 1970, Morgenthau even adopts a radical critique of the state as an
institution. In the nuclear age, he argues, the state is no longer able to protect its citizens adequately.Therefore, a new form of political organization needs to be found. See Hans J. Morgenthau, 'The
Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory', in James Der Derian (ed.), International Theory:Critical Investigations (London, 1995).
68Morgenthau, 'Kann in unserer Zeit eine objektive Moralordnung aufgestellt werden?', p. 114, quoted
in Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, p. 187 (my translation).
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
16/17
Godfathers of 'truth' 199
resolutely: And, above all, remember always that it is not only a political necessitybut a moral
dutyfor a nation to follow in its
dealingswith other nations but one
guiding star, one standard for thought, one rule for action: THE NATIONAL
INTEREST.'69If political action follows a predefined end, what is the responsibility of political
science? On this Morgenthau has a very clear prescription: 'The task of political
philosophy in our age, then, is to apply the perennial truths of politics to the
political world for the dual purpose of understanding it and of solving its
problems.'70 Political science is to take the role of a tutor reminding state leaders of
the necessity of power maximization and trying to devise ways to escape the 'lust'
for power of other states. In sum, political science's task is to aid the state in its
struggle for survival.
Conclusion
This article pursued two related aims. Firstly, it uncovered the intellectual link
between Morgenthau, Weber and Schmitt. A close look at Morgenthau's predecessors helps to shed some light on those dogmatic, power-political statements
that are spread all over Politics among Nations. Secondly, this article showed how
Morgenthau's claims to the objectivity of his theory of international politics can bejustified from within the logic of his conceptions of social science and the nature of
politics.
Morgenthau's ideas of 'the Political' and international politics make sense as longas they are seen in the context of the case of emergency, i.e., the struggle for national
self-preservation within the international system. Beyond this they have little to say.
They do not make up a general theory of international relations in terms of the
economic, cultural, religious or social exchange between peoples and states. Today it
is a truism that international relations is about more than relations between states
and their existential conflicts. For Morgenthau it was not. He never denied the
existence of relationships other than political ones within and across societies.Ultimately, however, they are all subordinated to the case of emergency. This pointallows Morgenthau to assert that international politics as a whole needs to be
analysed through the logic of the case of emergency which calls for powermaximization by any means.
There are many problems with Morgenthau's ideas about politics, and they havebeen widely remarked upon.71 Most of these critiques, however, focus on the
epistemological and ontological inconsistencies of Morgenthau's theories and do not
search for his philosophical godfathers. A genealogy of this kind inspires the reader
to interpret Morgenthau's ideas as part of a philosophical continuum, that of
German political and social thought in the pre-World War II period, rather than inisolation. For instance, the idea that conflict constitutes the essence of 'the Political'
69Quoted in S?llner, 'German Conservatism in America', p. 171.
70Morgenthau, Restoration of American Politics, p. 66 (my emphasis).71
See, e.g., George, Discourses of Global Politics, and Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society: A
Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London, 1994).
-
8/2/2019 The Godfathers of Truth Weber and Schmitt MorgenthauTheory
17/17
200 Hans-Karl Pichler
was widely known and shared among German political thinkers of the 1920s and
1930s, partlydue to Schmitt's influence. This
explains why Morgenthaudoes not
indulge in detailed proof of his forceful statements in this matter. As has been
shown, to him it was not only reasonable, but even obvious to argue this way.
Morgenthau has long been considered a theorist within the American positivisttradition. The aim of this article was to cast doubt on this reading by showing how
his work was an attempt to transfer the 'typically' European philosophical problemsof power and domination into an American political system engulfed by liberal
thought. How these ideas were transformed after being introduced into the
American liberal tradition is an interesting question for future research.