Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr's Understanding of Power

COMPARing AND CONTRASTing HANS MORGENTHAU AND EH CARR'S UNDERSTANDING OF POWER
Student's Name
Course
Professor's Name
University
City (State)
Date
"Comparing and Contrasting Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr's Understanding of Power"
Introduction
Political realism is a controversial territory within the area of international politics. Polarization within the domain of political realism mainly surrounds the treatment of the concepts relating to power, morality, international relations, and the level of the dichotomy between political realism and idealism or utopianism (Cox, 1996). History has seen the authors who borrowed concepts from other theoretical realms in order to craft a distinctive view of realism from their own perspective and present it as a holistic view of the subject matter. Some authors held a strict stance on the separation between objective reality and political realism, while others hinted at the possibility of an interface between them. This paper analyses the work of two renowned authors, Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr, who belong to the breed of political realists whose work invites the attention to fresh perspectives within political realism while challenging traditionally established ideas in part.
Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr belong to the realist school of thought within the domain of international relations (IR). Both these authors have historical and seminal contributions to the literature and knowledge database around power and interest in the political and geopolitical context. It is worth mentioning that despite sharing their roots, Morgenthau and Carr had criticized each other on different grounds. Morgenthau alleges Carr of tempering the purest essence of realism by interjecting relativistic instrumental conception of morality (Morgenthau 1949). Carr also attributes Utopianism to Morgenthau's work and dismisses his argument based on the inadequacy of realism (Carr & Cox, 2016). This cross-argumentation shows that Carr and Morgenthau hold considerable distinctions in their approach to realism. A close understanding of each author's treatment of the concept of power reveals that Carr's assertions are backed by historical evidence and simple logic, thereby remaining superior in their ideological sense compared to his counterpart.
This essay delves deep into each author's approach to the concept of power within the context of IR and highlights the key commonalities and nuances. The insights are gleaned from the current literature debate involving these authors' contributions or critiques of their work. Based on the insights gained from the analysis, the concluding parts lay out the verdict about the relative strength of the arguments posited by each author.
Power as Defined by Each Author
Before delving into the details and the principles set forth by Morgenthau, it is essential to understand how each author approaches the concept of power. For Morgenthau, power is the ultimate goal that advances the interest of a state or nation. The author emphasizes that power dictates a nation's relative strength within the universal inter-state competition in space and time (Morgenthau 1948). Carr's conceptualization of power is not much different from Morgenthau's since the former also sees power as the ultimate determinant of a state's position in inter-state competition and the primary consideration within IR (Carr, 2021). Both the authors agree on the fact that power lies at the bottom of the domination or subordination of a state in the global context.
However, the difference arises regarding the power sources perceived by each author. Morgenthau opines that power is the ability of a subject to hold and exercise control over its object's mind and action (Morgenthau, 1949). Hence, to Morgenthau, power is a psychological consideration where the mindset is of pivotal importance. Carr dismisses this idea and argues in realistic terms that race for power involves states' pursuit to maximize their access and control over the maximum amount of resources. Since resources are scarce, states have to fight to gain control and have the edge over their competitors (Kubálková, 2015). In this way, the race for power remains physical in nature. Carr's power scope does not contain psychological or intangible elements like Morgenthau's conception.
Power as an Objective
Morgenthau has articulated his conceptual approach to power in the form of six clearly stated principles. The first principle stresses that the power struggle is rooted in human nature and constitutes the core of politics and international relations. At the same time, the author outlines that politics, like society, is based on objective laws (Morgenthau, 1949). In other words, Morgenthau posits that the forces governing politics and its pursuits remain intact irrespective of time and space.
Carr also defines power as the determinant of interest and relates it to human nature. However, Carr does not go as far as to present his argument as an objective reality. On the other hand, the author refers to rationality and pragmatic sense and argues that the use of power is largely dictated by a given situation (Carr, 2021). In other words, the manners in which power is used may vary with time and space. In this way, Carr's concept of power does not claim to have an objective sense. Rather, Carr sees actions and intentions as rooted in assessing the situation. It also implies that to Carr, the forces that govern politics may change with time.
To this end, Carr and Morgenthau also appear to deconstruct his argument. For instance, at one stage, Morgenthau vehemently criticizes any effort to reinterpret reality (Morgenthau, 1948). However, the attempt to reinterpret the reality is attributable to Morgenthau's claim of objectivity and encapsulating it into his principles. The principle also contradicts Hegel's widely accepted philosophical treatment of objectivity, according to which man is responsible for creating his reality and assigning meanings to the same (Carr, 2021). In other words, Morgenthau's assertion of objectivity is self-contradictory since it constitutes a subjective idea that has already been deconstructed by Carr and wide-held philosophical ideologies.
State versus State-Nation
The authors also have differences in their approach to the unit of power. For Carr, power originates from and belongs to the state where the state is a self-governing territory with fixed geographic boundaries (Carr, 2021). Carr believes that the reference to the state is sufficient to determine the relative power of an entity. Based on his state-centered view, Carr places considerable weight on the state's sovereignty as the ultimate source of power (Carr, 2001). Morgenthau's view regarding the unit of power is different because Morgenthau attributes it to nation-states (Morgenthau, 1949). In this way, Morgenthau's treatment of the source of power remains ethnocentric.
Morgenthau believes that the dominant culture within a society or nation plays a vital role in determining the overall power of a state relative to its competitors. In his third principle, the author refers to the suitability of the cultural environment as a significant contributor to the political strength of a state. According to Morgenthau, each nation has a few people upon whom the power is highly concentrated. It is important to note how these people tend to use their power. It will be an evil pursuit if they prefer using power for self-interest. On the other hand, if they resolve to use it to benefit society, it will contribute to the nation's overall power (Morgenthau, 1949). Hence, a nation's power is a considerable variable in Morgenthau's equation, implying that a nation can be strong or weak independent of the state's power depending on how nation-states behave.
While considering this cross-argumentation, it is important to refer to Mearsheimer (2005) 's coverage of Carr's work and cross-comparison of Carr's main assertions with the current affairs in global politics. The researcher argues that Carr's seminal work remains relevant to the modern world's situation. Mearsheimer agrees with Carr's stance that states remain the center of power. The researcher gives examples of Chechens, Kurds, Palestinians, and other groups who seek to form a nation to ensure security and gain power. While Mearsheimer appreciates Carr's scoping of 'state,' he is also critical of his undermining the power of nations. In this way, the author supports Morgenthau's approach to the matter. For example, Mearsheimer finds that nation-states remain a dominant source of power and significant contributors to the powers of the state. Several examples back the author's claim, such as resistance faced by America in Iraq and Afghanistan and the by Israelis in occupied areas of Palestine (Carr, 2021). To say differently, nationalism should not be undermined since it is the dominant force behind how nations group into and remain loyal to their states. The states constitute the identities of nations. While gauged from this perspective, Carr and Morgenthau align with empirical evidence at varying levels. While Carr's view of the state as the main source of power is vindicated, it is hard to disregard Morgenthau's stance in its entirety.
Take on the Interaction between Power and Morality
There is a stark contrast between Morgenthau and Carr in their treatment of the concept of morality and its discussion in conjunction with their approach to power. Morgenthau rules out the incorporation of morality into the use of power. To him, the race for power is universally applicable, and it is normal for the power to threaten and overpower the weaker opponents (Morgenthau, 1949). The political interests are purely rooted in the struggle for power without regard to the moral status of the quest for and exercise of power (Harrison & Boyd, 2003). In Morgenthau's view, morality has no place in a realistic approach to conceiving the use of power.
As opposed to Morgenthau, Carr posits that morality and realism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Carr argues that power must be used while respecting moral standards (Carr & Cox, 2016). While making this argument, Carr remains careful not to sound deviating from his line of argument and underpinning philosophy (realism). He backs his ideas by adding that there is a realistic and self-interested sense to applying morality to using power. This realistic sense has its source in cooperation. The author admits that cooperation is not a natural ingredient of human behavior. At the same time, he emphasizes the need for cooperation for the long-term survival of society (Carr, 2021; Carr & Cox, 2016). In other words, if individuals or states co-operate, it will pave the path to long-term survival. Also, Carr believes that the illegitimate use of power gives a short-lasting edge, if any.
A comparative analysis of both views indicates problems with each argument. As for Morgenthau's view of power without regard to cooperation is important to refer to Morgenthau's reasoning for variations within nations in their approach to avoiding war. For example, the author argues that most economically stable nations generally tend to avoid wear due to detrimental implications that war may have on their economy. The author has also given examples of how Japan showed aggression while the US exercised restraint during the world war, assuming that Japan had nothing to lose (Modjtahedi & Szpunar, 2022). While this view is considered, Morgenthau's argument about the ruthless use of war seems incongruent. Carr better complements Morgenthau's views in this context since cooperative behavior will be in the nations' best interest.
At the same time, Carr perceives morality in his view of the precautious use of power, and interaction between the pursuit of power and global harmony is not a romanticized view of morality. Instead, it is closely rooted in the same dialectical sense of political science as illustrated by Morgenthau. For example, Morgenthau holds that self-interest takes precedence over any other pursuit in geopolitics (Morgenthau, 1949). Carr's reference to cooperation in the long-term pursuit of self-interest. The balance of power may keep shifting with time from one nation to another and so forth. Therefore, if the states continue to use power and endeavor to subordinate their opponents forcibly, it will create an endless sense of vengeance. Hence, the states may repeatedly confront at the cost of stability. Therefore, the suggestion for cooperation is the path to a secure and peaceful future for all the states engaged in this process.
Deterministic Approach by Morgenthau
In his second principle, Morgenthau states that it is essential to understand the concept of interest in terms of power to build an understanding of the political economy. This assertion by Morgenthau drags him to the realm of determinism, where his views reveal a compelling desire for reality to exist in a certain way rather than accepting reality as it is in realistic terms (Morgenthau & Thompson, 2005). In this context, Morgenthau aims to set the context and prepare a foundation that imparts an understanding of international politics. The author shows a desire for a certain theory rather than using reality as the lens to offer a glimpse into the political scene.
While seen from this standpoint, Carr's allegations against Morgenthau about utopianism make sense. It shows that Morgenthau aims to determine the scale to gauge a certain essence of understanding international politics. On the other hand, Carr links the motives, sources, and elements of the use of power back to rationalism. To Carr, reason remains primary to the race for power, and reason has no definite shape (Carr, 2021). In this way, Carr clears the deterministic approach to which his counterpart seems to have fallen. Carr is more interested in portraying the picture and drawing the trajectory extending from the past to the future. According to Carr, history is a constant dialogue between the past and future (Carr, 2021). On the other hand, Morgenthau aims to create a picture of his own and wants his followers to look at the picture from his specific standpoint.
Right and Wrong in State's Approach to Power
While considering the political reality and its association with mortality, it is important to refer to the third principle by Morgenthau, in which he assumes that the level of power for states is variable depending on the cultural, political, and strategic environment, the concept of interest (as defined in terms of power) remains the same (Gellman, 1988). Here again, the author strives to create an objective principle and shares his concept of interest as an eternal and unalterable truth. In other words, each state has a sense of interest consistent with those held by other nations, while there is no other permutation or version of interest within international politics.
These ideas are repeatedly and vehemently challenged within the normative philosophy and contradict states' general experience. For example, Aristotle and other philosophy founders agree that virtue changes its value and shape with time. Nations as a whole are constantly reflecting on their experience and revising their approach to morality and virtue (Aristotle, 2013). These universally admitted philosophical ideas call Morgenthau's self-assigned objectivity of interest and power into question. In other words, a nation may shift from one interest to another over time, and different nations may have varying motivations behind using power.
Carr's commentary in this context is of high significance. For example, firstly, Carr defines the state as an organic whole, ruling out the idea that the universality of a single perspective of interest may exist (Germain, 2019). If a state is an organic whole, it is unnecessarily similar to another state which is also an organic whole in and of itself.
Secondly, Carr clearly outlines that prevailing ideas and cultures tend to change in a continuous effort to ensure adaptation. Social conditioning is an ongoing process, and states determine what is 'right' concerning their interest at a particular time. Carr has also highlighted those different variations of rights that exist for different nations that determine their approach to interest and, subsequently, the use of power (Cox, 1996). Hence, Carr's moral view of interest is more dynamic and closer to reality.
Carr's view of int...