This article investigates Morgenthau's views on the ethics of scholarship and argues that all his works should be read in the light of his central goal: speaking truth to power. Doing so demonstrates that for Morgenthau, a realist theory of international politics includes two dimensions: it is supposed to explain international relations, but it is also, fundamentally, a critical project which questions the existing status quo. While the explanatory dimension of realism is debated at great length, its critical dimension is consistently overlooked by the more recent, self-named 'critical' approaches which tend to present the two adjectives 'realist' and 'critical' as mutually exclusive. This amounts to an insidious high-jacking of the very adjective critical, which in most cases merely signals one does not espouse a realist perspective. This is highly problematic as it obscures the fact that for Morgenthau, the founding father of realism, political science is by definition a subversive and revolutionary force critical of the existing order. Highlighting the critical dimension that lies at the core of the realist project as formulated by Morgenthau therefore challenges the current narrow use of the adjective 'critical' in the discipline and leads to reclaim it for the realist tradition. 'I am a latent revolutionary'Hans J. Morgenthau, Personal Diary 1

Realism contends that politics is a struggle for power and/or survival, and consequently depicts international politics as a realm of recurrent conflicts among states with very little prospect for change. It is therefore not traditionally regarded as an approach which entertains an idea of progress. E.H Carr famously rejected “pure realism” as an untenable position precisely because it fails to provide “a ground for action,” and advocated finding a delicate balance between realism and utopia, as meaningful political action must include both. While realism certainly entails a degree of pessimism, it is far fetched to claim that realist scholars are radically sceptical about the future of international relations. The article investigates Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron, two leading classical realist scholars, and argues that neither advocated a strict version of power politics. On the contrary, they both attempted to find the balance Carr suggested between realist concerns and ideals necessary to spur political action. Both were also very aware of the dangers of nihilism, and upheld hope in the future of humankind, even if this hope remains tempered by pessimism as to whether it will ever realize its destiny.

This article focuses on the relationship between means and ends in international politics, which is one of the core issues that has been reflected upon in international relations. Political realism, usually regarded as the dominant paradigm in international relations, provides a very specific understanding of this relationship: power and survival are considered as the unique, given and fixed ends of political action on the international scene. Consequently, a theory of international relations only concentrates on how states can make the most efficient use of the varied means the states dispose of in order to achieve these ends. However, this article argues that this dominant conception of international politics is surprisingly narrow. By focusing on other prominent thinkers traditionally labelled as 'realists', like Clausewitz and Aron, the article stresses the complexity of the relationship of means and ends and the place of power within a realist theory of international relations.Political realism has traditionally been regarded as the dominant paradigm of international relations. Not surprisingly, most criticisms voiced in the field are directed against this school of thought. One of the most justified of these stresses the uncertainty of the status of its central concept -power -within realist theories, and the neglect of values. For the most prominent realists, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, power and survival are the core ideas used in their account of international relations. Even though differences are to be found between the two scholars, both agree on the role played by power and survival in their theory: these two concepts are presented as the rational goal of international politics. Survival being the end, the struggle for power is the essence of state relations. A theory of international relations therefore aims at stressing the most effective use that can be made, by states, of means or capabilities at their disposal in order to achieve this end.This article argues that realism is too often only conceived as an AngloAmerican school of thought. Morgenthau and Waltz are certainly the most quoted scholars in the tradition, but this obscures the fact that realism, defined as a specific approach to international relations, also includes other, nonAmerican thinkers, who, while being part of that school, nevertheless have a

No abstract