Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Trustees of Princeton University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to World Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
I
ofconsidering
It is thepossibility relations
international as a largely
autonomous the
field,within sprawling and loosescience of politics,
whichexplains theneedfortheory.
Arguments aboutthedegreeofautonomy ofinternationalrelations,
bothas an areaofhumanactivity discipline,
andas an intellectual can
go on forever.No onewillcontend thatthefieldcanbe isolatedeasily,
orthattheproblems setbypolitical scienceandpolitical philosophy in
generalarenotrelevant here,too.However, thethreefollowing points
shouldbe decisive. First,thefieldcan be sufficientlyisolatedforana-
lyticalpurposes. Internationalrelationstakeplacein a milieuwhich
has itsown "coherence and uniqueness," itsrulesof thegamewhich
differ sharplyfromtherulesofdomestic itsownperspective.'
politics,
Secondly, sincethisprerequisiteis met,thefieldshouldbe treated as an
1 FrederickS. Dunn, "The Scopeof International
Relations,"WorldPolitics,i, No. i
(OctoberI948), pp. I42-46; GeorgeLiska,International
Equilibrium,
Cambridge, Mass.,
I957, pp. i98ff.
autonomous discipline.
To be sure,suchautonomy, insofaras it arbi-
trarily isolates
andelevates onesector ofsocialactivity,performs a kind
of vivisection.However, no socialscientistcan workwithout at least
an implicit modelofhisfieldin hismind.Ifwe lookatthetwosocial
sciences whosecontributions havebeenmostvitalforthedevelopment
of international relations:politicalscienceand sociology, we see that
thesedisciplines use as a modelthe imageof the integrated com-
munity. Now,whatever elsethenatureof international relationsmay
be, it is notan "integrated system."2 It wouldbe verydangerous, in
thelongrun,to continue to workin ourfieldwitha modelthatdoes
notfit.Manyofthemistakes of moderntheoretical attempts in inter-
nationalrelations and in international law comefromthesystematic
misapplication ofthemodeloftheintegrated Rechtstatto thedecen-
tralized milieu-either
international as a normforanalysis, oras a goal.
Thirdly, without wantingto soundlikean imperialist fora relatively
greenscience, I wouldarguethatthearchitectonic roleAristotle at-
tributed tothescienceofthePolismightwellbelongtodayto interna-
tionalrelations, whichhavebecometheverycondition of our daily
life.If we weretoputtheprimary emphasis in thestudyofpolitics on
worldaffairs, and to treatdomestic politicsin thelightof worldaf-
fairs,insteadof thereverse, we mightproducea Copernican revolu-
tionevenbiggerthanthechangethattransformed economics when
macro-analysis replacedmicro-analysis.3
As an autonomousdiscipline,international relationsis not in very
good shape.I am not worriedby disagreement on a definition of the
field.Debateswhichtryto determine the scopeof a socialscienceusu-
ally end withformulasevenmoreambiguousthanthe absenceof any
definition-likeattempts at defining The participants
aggression.4 argue
fortheirinterpretations as if therewere an immutableessenceof in-
ternationalpolitics,or sociology,etc. A nominalistapproachmakes
moresense:thebestdefinition is the statementwhich,withoutviolat-
ing common-sense notionsaboutthesubstanceand purposesof thedis-
cipline,leads to the most perceptiveinvestigations. How could one
2 See Sir AlfredZimmern's remarkson similarlines:The Studyof International Rela-
tions,Oxford,1934, p. 15.
3See the reflectionsof AlexanderRfistow,"WeshalbWissenschaft der Politik,"in
ZeitschriftfurPolitik,I, 1954, pp. 132-35.
4 See RichardC. Snyder,"Toward GreaterOrder in the Study of International
Politics,"WorldPolitics,VII, No. 3 (April 1955), pp. 461-78; AntonioTruyol,"La
Teoria de las RelacionesInternacionales como Sociologia,"Revistade EstudiosPoliticos,
xcvi (November-December 1957), pp. 293-336. George Schwarzenberger's definition
includesthe dangerousexpression"international society"(Power Politics,New York,
1951, p. 4).
II
I will tryto discussonlythe main generaltheoreticaleffortsof pre-
dominantly empiricalorientation,and I will beginwithtwo attempts
at providingus with a broad explanationof world affairs.
The theory whichhas occupiedthecenterof thescenein thiscountry
duringthe last tenyearsis ProfessorMorgenthau's"realist"theoryof
powerpolitics.It triesto give us a reliablemap of the landscapeof
worldaffairs,9to catchtheessenceof worldpolitics.The masterkeyis
theconceptof interest definedin termsof power.The theorysucceeds
in focusingattentionon theprincipalactorsin worldaffairs:thestates,
and on the factorsthataccountforthe autonomyof international re-
lations: the differencesbetweendomesticand world politicswhich
thwarttheoperationin thelatterof ideas and institutionsthatflourish
7 On this point, see David Easton, The Political System,New York, 1953, pp. 78ff.;
Hans J. Morgenthau, "Reflectionson the State of Political Science," Review of Politics,
XVII, No. 4 (October 1955), pp. 43i-60.
8 See Alfred Cobban, "The Decline of Political Theory," Political Science Quarterly,
LXVIII,No. 3 (September1953), pp. 321-37.
9 Morgenthau, op.cit., pp. 455ff.
ton, I 957. The application of a rationalityof means to the selection of ends is, it seems
to me, one of the fallacies that mar the argument for limited nuclear war.
17 See Hans J. Morgenthau, "Another 'Great Debate': The National Interest of the
United States," AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,XLVI, No. 4 (December I952), pp.
973-76; and a critique of this attitudein Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and
the Childrenof Darkness,New York, 1944, pp. I73ff.
18Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 9.
III
Thereis another
roadwhichis supposedto endin theory.
It is be-
ginning
tobe muchtraveled.
In a way,itseemslesspretentious.
Those
24 ErnestBarkerin M. F. AshleyMontagu,ed., Toynbeeand History,Boston,1956,
pp. 94-95. See also TalcottParsons,Essaysin SociologicalTheory,Pure and Applied,
Glencoe,Ill., 1949, pp. 23ff.
25 HenryA. Kissinger, "The Meaningof History,"unpublished
dissertation,
Harvard
UniversityLibrary,p. I43.
26PitirimSorokinin P. Geyl,A. Toynbee,and P. Sorokin,The Patternof the Past,
Boston,1949, pp. I I 1-12,
theidea thattherearevarioustypesofinternational
systems,and the
warningthatthesetypesare not integrated socialsystems,he soon
forgets
thewarning andoverextendstheidea.He borrows hisvocabu-
whosemodelis theintegrated
laryfroma discipline andwhose
society,
concepts milieucharacterized
do not fitthe smallinternational by
"theextraordinarydiversity
ofnational Suchheterogeneity
situations."40
vitiatesan abstractdiscussionin termsof general "role functions":
fromthe viewpointof the "total system"the differences betweenthe
basic unitsare as importantas the similarities;the oppositeis true
when the sociologistlooks at the actorsin the social system.Mr. Kap-
lan's roles,systems,and processesare assumed but not examined.
Consequently, "sociologism"operateshere,too-in themostunlikely
field.International systemsare discussedas if theyhad a compulsive
will of theirown; the implicitGod, Society,who gave its stuffy op-
pressiveness to theuniverseof Comteand Durkheim,is again at work,
undertheincognitoof System.Each systemassignsrolesto actors;the
structure of thesystemsetsitsneeds,its needsdetermineits objectives,
and "theobjectivesof a systemare valuesforthe system."'"The only
processesdiscussedare processesof maintenance, integration, and dis-
integration;for the implied supremevalue is stability:mechanical
stability,sincepurposesand valuesotherthanpreservation of the sys-
temare leftout.It is theusual penaltyforthedoubleattemptto drive
the consideration of values out of the subjectmatter,and to presenta
value-free theory:thestatus quo becomesan empiricaland normative
pivot.42 However,international systemsare alwaysopen and moving
-at leastsufficiently to forceus to abandonthemodel and thevocabu-
laryof theclosedsystem.
Secondly,theinadequacyof theresultscan be shownby pointingto
theirinabilityto explain world politics.On the one hand, excessive
concernforOccam'srazor,and thetendencyto reducepoliticsto what
it is not,entaila loss of suchvitalelementsas institutions,
culture,and
the actionof individualsas autonomousvariablesratherthan social
atoms.As in therealisttheory, Mr. Kaplan's emphasison international
systems also involvesa neglectof thedomesticdeterminants of thena-
tionalactors,and his model of actionleaves out the forcesof change
40 Edwin Dickinson,Law and Peace, Philadelphia,i95i, p. 6; also Charles De
Visscher,Theoryand Realityin Public International
Law, Princeton,N.J.,I957, pp.
153-55-
in W. W. Rostow,"Toward
p. I49. See a critiqueof thistendency
41 Kaplan,op.cit.,
a GeneralTheoryof Action,"WorldPolitics,v, No. 4 (JulyI953), pp. 530-54; and
RaymondAron,GermanSociology,London, i957, pp. 69ff.and io8.
42 MorrisCohen,Reason and Nature,New York, I93I, pp. 343-44.
longeraccusetheauthorofleavingout toomanycrucialvariables, or
ofputting at theheartof his schemea conceptwhosevalueimplica-
tionsand empirical significanceinterfere witheachother.Indeed,the
framework suffersfromexactly theopposite defects. The boxbuiltby
Mr.Snyder is so fullofsmallerboxeswithinboxesthat,beforeit can
be used,muchhastobe thrown out.His approach obeystheprinciple
ofindeterminacy andfailsto suggest whichone of thenumerous ele-
mentsthatmakeup themanysidesof thebox are likelyto be most
One of theparadoxes
relevant.54 of thesearchforpure"interrelated-
ness"is thattheschemeendswitha mereenumeration offactors:we
arebeingshownthepearls,and we are toldthattheyare somehow
connected. In addition, thecombined disadvantage ofthis"value-free"
centralconcept andoftheloanfromorganization and communication
theoriesis proceduralism-the view,oncemore,of worldpoliticsas
a setofprocedures (easilyrepresented bycirclesand arrows)irrespec-
tiveofthesubstance ofthe"messages" carriedor decisions made.
As fortheassumption behindtheconcept, it is that"action"in in-
ternationalrelations canbe defined as a setofdecisions madebyrecog-
nizableunits.Thispostulate canbe attacked bothforwhatit includes
and forwhatit excludes.First,it impliesthatpoliticsis normally
madeup ofhighlyconscious movesandchoiceswhichcanbe analyzed
in termsofneatcategories. I am notsurethatthisis thewaythings
happen,thatactionscan easilybe isolatedin time,pinneddownlike
brokenup intodistinct
butterflies, elements, and comparedas if a
meansto measurealternatives and preferences in politicshad been
invented.Secondly, thepostulate leavesout of international relations
everything thatis notthemereaddition ofseparate decisionsmadeby
variousunits.Manypatterns and rulesofworldpolitics, suchas the
balanceofpowerorinternational law,areonlyinparta deliberate prod-
uctofstatesmen's will.In part,thebalanceofpoweris a broadauto-
maticdevice, andinternational lawtheaccretion ofcustoms whichcan-
notbe explained byMr. Snyder's "phenomenological" approach. The
theory'sfocusmightbe rightforforeign-policy analysis,
butit is too
weakfortherestof international relations.Generalizations basedon
comparative studiesofdecision-making willbe misleading iftheinter-
nationalcontext whichconditions thebehavior oftheunitsis notstud-
ied moreadequately. All thisdoesnotmeanthatdecision-making is
nota highly usefultoolofanalysis. In fact,Mr.Snyder's schemeis most
54 Compare Snyder's scheme with Bernard C. Cohen's simpler and convincing frame-
work in The Political Process and Foreign Policy, Princeton,N.J., 1957. See Herbert
McClosky, "Concerning Strategiesfor a Science of InternationalPolitics," World Poli-
tics, viii, No. 2 (January1956), pp. 281-95.
as a detailedapproachto thestudyof
Butit is impressive
impressive.
notto thewholeof international
decision-making, relations.
IV
We havebeenengagedin a wrecking operation. Nevertheless, the
needforconceptualization and theoryremains. I wouldliketo offer
somesuggestions fora farmoremodestand slowwayof proceeding
towardtheory. Theyare basedon postulates whichare certainly as
debatableas thoseI havediscussed. Butthereis a difference: I do not
claimthatit is possibleto squeezethewholecamelof international
relations
through theeyeofone needle.
Indeed,myfirst assumption is oneofrelativism andpluralism. Each
one of theapproaches I havereviewed has something to contribute;
noneis theonlyrightwayofphrasing thequestion, or theonlyright
answer.In everysocialscience, and quiteobviously here,thefactswe
can gatherare too numerous, too opento conflicting interpretations,
too "unstructured,"to fitonlyone schemeof analysis.55 The broader
theareathesocialscientistwantstounderstand, themorehe is guided
byhisownvalues.The author's postulatesareshowneither bythekind
of hierarchyhe establishesamongvariables, or by his refusal,in the
name of "system," to establisha hierarchy. sometimes
Social scientists
act as if theinevitablesubjectivity
of theirminds-potentially as useful
as an entrepreneur'sinventiveness-were somesortofbiasto be ashamed
of.The onlyalternative to an open statement of valuesby socialscien-
tistsleads to "the characteristic suppressionof theseprob-
positivistic
lemsundera new disguise."56 Furthermore, we neverapproacha whole
fieldmerelywiththe desireto "understand"it. The analyticalmodels
we use areinfluenced bothbyeach age's viewof humannatureand by
the mostpressingcontemporary problems.The systemsof todayare
keyed to the problems of statecraftraisedby a bipolarworld and by
thespreadof nationalism. The new imageof man as one livingorgan-
ism amongmany,conditionedby environment, and to be bestunder-
stood in termsof adjustmentor maladjustment, underliesmuch of
modern social science,includinginternationalrelations.
Secondly,when one triesto understanda field,thereis no sounder
methodthan thatof drawingone's questionsand concepts,"as An-
5 Talcott Parsons, The Structureof Social Action,New York, I937, pp. 592ff., Ray-
mond Aron, La theorie de l'histoire dans l'Allemagne contemporaine, Paris, 1938,
pp. 255 and 266ff.
56 C. J. Friedrich in Robert Merton et al., Reader in Bureaucracy,Glencoe, Ill., 1952,
p. 33. See also Thomas I. Cook, review of Lasswell and Kaplan, Power and Society,
in Journalof Philosophy,XLVIII, No. 22 (October i95i), p. 698.